Oral
Answers to
Questions

COP26

The President of COP26 was asked—

Paris Agreement Temperature Goal

Colum Eastwood: What progress he made at COP26 on ensuring the Paris Agreement temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius remains achievable

Alok Sharma: The Glasgow climate pact agreed by almost 200 countries is a historic agreement that advances climate action. It was the result of two years of marathon work and a two-week sprint of negotiations, following which the world can creditably say that we have kept within reach the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5° above pre-industrial levels. But to keep 1.5 alive, commitments must be translated into action.

Colum Eastwood: The Minister will be well aware that Northern Ireland has a huge farming and agriculture sector. What funding will his Government give to that sector to allow us to get to net zero much more quickly?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing an enormous amount to tackle the issues in respect of net zero. On the COP itself and the joint work we are doing around the world, we have put in place a number of mechanisms that we will continue this year, particularly when it comes to sustainable development.

Alberto Costa: Given that the Centre for International Environmental Law states that plastic pollution and global warming are linked, does the Minister agree that we need to do far more to tackle the scourge of microplastic and microfibre pollution in our marine environment?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He knows that in some of these policy areas we are leading the world, and he will also know that we have been leading the effort to get countries to make the 30by30 commitment to protect our oceans and, of course, our lands.

Darren Jones: The COP President has not set out which countries are his priority for enhanced nationally determined contributions in the run-up to COP27; will he do so?

Alok Sharma: As the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee knows, all countries have committed to come back to their 2030 emissions-reduction targets by 2022, if necessary. Of course, the G20 is responsible for 80% of global emissions and will have to lead the way.

Philip Dunne: Important steps were made at COP26 but some were left incomplete. In my right hon. Friend’s remaining time as COP President, until November, on what particular item will he seek to make the most progress?

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend is right: a whole range of commitments were made, some of which will continue beyond the end of 2022. As I said, a key commitment was for countries to revisit their emissions-reduction targets by the end of 2022. We will work with the COP27 presidency from Egypt to ensure that countries deliver.

Ed Miliband: Two months on from the COP, there is a worrying lack of momentum in this pivotal year, and it could get worse if we learn the wrong lessons from the energy crisis. Does the COP President agree that the lesson is not that, as some in his party would say, we are moving too fast on green energy, but the opposite: we are moving too slowly and our dependence on fossil fuels leaves us vulnerable? The only way, therefore, to keep 1.5 alive and provide energy security is to go further and faster on the climate transition.

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UK wants to have a managed transition to net zero, including in our energy mix. He will also know that under this Government we have led the world in offshore wind and that this Government are delivering investment in nuclear to ensure that we increase our baseload.

Ed Miliband: Consumers looking at their energy bills will ask, “If it is going so well, why are our bills rocketing and why are we so vulnerable?” We can keep 1.5 alive only if we have an energy policy that is fair at home and abroad. Many of the fossil fuel companies have made billions as a result of soaring prices, yet the Government say we should not tax them further because they are struggling. Is not the truth that we are only ever going to meet the Paris agreement if we stand up to vested interests, including the oil and gas companies, and that the fair and right approach is a windfall tax to help with the real struggles faced by the British people?

Alok Sharma: We want to see more private sector investment in offshore wind and, indeed, in renewables and the increasing of our green baseload. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that in the net zero strategy we have set out a plan for an extra £90 billion of investment from the private sector. That is flowing in because of the actions of this Government.

Deidre Brock: Our young people have led the fight for tougher climate change pledges, so the world at least does not breach 1.5° of warming. To support their activism, Scotland recently hosted the UN Climate Change Conference of Youth ahead of COP26, has unveiled almost £1 million for a programme for young people in the climate conference and legacy activities, and has signed up to the UNICEF declaration on children, youth and climate change, along with countries such as Norway, the Netherlands and Peru. The UK Government have not signed up to that declaration. Will they, and when?

Alok Sharma: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that we absolutely need to ensure that the voices of young people are heard loud and clear—and indeed they were at COP26, both in terms of civil society and youth groups. For the first time ever, leading into that COP, we set up a civil society youth advisory group that helped us plan for the conference and identify the issues to take forward. We will continue to engage with young people in civil society during our presidency year.

COP26 Commitments: Government Procurement

James Daly: Whether he has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential contribution of Government procurement to delivering on COP26 commitments.

Alok Sharma: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government put in place a new procurement policy that underlines the UK’s global leadership in tackling climate change. Prospective suppliers bidding for contracts above £5 million a year must now have committed to the Government’s target of net zero by 2050 and have published a carbon reduction plan.

James Daly: In line with the COP26 goal of adapting to protect communities and natural habitats, what conversations has my right hon. Friend had with colleagues to ensure Government procurement of biodegradable face masks?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The Department of Health and Social Care is indeed actively exploring the use of reusable face masks, reusable eye protection and reusable transparent masks. I will ensure that the relevant Minister from the Department writes to him with more details.

Caroline Lucas: As the COP26 President knows, the Glasgow climate pact reaffirmed the ambition to limit global heating to 1.5°. He also knows that the International Energy Agency has made it really clear that if we are to meet that target there can be no new oil, gas or coal projects. So will he make the case to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that the 40 new fossil fuel projects in the pipeline for approval in the UK are plainly incompatible with the terms of the agreement that he presided over?

Alok Sharma: I wish that sometimes the hon. Lady would praise the work that the Government are doing in terms of pushing forward on renewables. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has set out  a consultation on a climate compatibility checkpoint when it comes to future licences, and she should write in and set out her views.

Transition to Net Zero: North Sea Oil  and Gas Industry

Andrea Leadsom: What assessment he has made of the potential role of the North Sea oil and gas industry in the transition to net zero in line with objectives agreed at COP26.

Greg Hands: Through the North Sea transition deal, the oil and gas industry has committed to early targets for offshore production emissions reductions, with 10% reductions by 2025, 25% by 2027 and 50% by 2030, setting out the path to achieve a net zero basin by 2050.

Andrea Leadsom: I certainly will praise my right hon. and hon. Friends for their amazing work on renewable energy, and on the transition to net zero, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the net zero challenge is the greatest challenge of our generation, to keep energy bills down and to keep our energy security we must make best use of our oil and gas resources?

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend makes a very strong case. Obviously the answer lies with renewables, but it also makes no sense for us to increase imports of volatile-price fossil fuels, which come to us with higher embedded emissions. That is why we have the North Sea transition deal—not to close down the industry, but to work with the sector to make the transition to the net zero future that we all signed up to.

Olivia Blake: In a recent written question, No. 98384, the Government were asked if they would explain how individual policies in the net zero strategy, including on North sea oil and gas, would reduce emissions. In a reply dated 14 January 2022, the Minister said that he would publish the information when
“decisions on the design of the associated individual policy intervention are sufficiently advanced”.
How is it possible that the Government published a net zero strategy without an understanding of what the individual policies will mean, and how can we therefore believe their promise that we are on course to meet crucial targets for 2030 and 2035?

Greg Hands: Of course the Government are fully aware of these issues; there is no change in the Government’s position. We published the net zero strategy and we are seeing it come through. We are delivering on all of the aspects. My right hon. Friend the COP President just mentioned the climate change compatibility checkpoint. We are delivering on all of these things with haste.

David Duguid: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response and the Government’s ongoing commitment to support the UK oil and gas sector in their role to drive forward the energy transition to net zero. Will my right hon. Friend join me in  welcoming yesterday’s High Court ruling to throw out claims by certain environmental activists that UK Government support for the industry was unlawful?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We welcome yesterday’s judgment. I, probably like he, wonder whether the SNP and the Scottish Green Government in Edinburgh would share our welcome. There will be an ongoing need for oil and gas as we reduce demand amid the transition to lower carbon energy, which, in the end, is the solution. I know from my visit to his constituency just last month how important renewables are for delivery in his constituency of Banff and Buchan.

COP26 Commitments: Carbon Capture and Sequestration

Alan Brown: What assessment he has made of the potential role of carbon capture and sequestration in delivering the UK’s COP26 commitments to reduce emissions.

Greg Hands: The UK can become a world leader in technology to capture and store harmful emissions away from the atmosphere. In the net zero strategy, the UK Government announced their ambition to capture and store 20 to 30 megatonnes of CO2 per annum by 2030, with 10 megatonnes to be delivered by track-2 clusters.

Alan Brown: The Scottish carbon cluster site would address Scotland’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters. It would unlock 30% of the UK’s carbon dioxide storage capability and combine hydrogen production, direct air capture and a shipping terminal to serve the rest of the UK in terms of carbon dioxide storage. Why then was the Scottish cluster relegated to reserve status and what representation has the right hon. Gentleman had from the “lightweight” Scottish Tory leader about this disgraceful decision?

Greg Hands: As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, Acorn is the first reserve, which means that it met the eligibility criteria and performed well in the evaluation criteria. As for the Scottish Conservatives, I speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, frequently. I also speak to the local MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), and others. The Scottish cluster, Acorn, has a good future. I have also recently met with Storegga, INEOS and Shell to discuss specific aspects in relation to the cluster, which moves ahead.

Zero Emission Vehicles

Sheryll Murray: What progress he made at COP26 on supporting the transition to zero emission vehicles.

Stephen Metcalfe: What progress he made at COP26 on supporting the transition to zero emission vehicles.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: At COP26, the UK launched a joint statement with more than 100 signatories, committing to work towards all new car sales being zero emission by 2040 globally, and by 2035 in leading markets. Thirty-two per cent. of the global car market is now covered by manufacturer commitments to phase out polluter vehicles.

Sheryll Murray: Cornwall is keen to take the lead in the emergency green economy, in particular looking at local lithium to store electricity. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on what action the Government are taking to utilise this important asset and what benefits she sees for the people of Cornwall.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: My hon. Friend the Minister for industry visited innovative UK companies Cornish Lithium and British Lithium just last week to see their exciting progress towards producing lithium in the UK. These are great examples of UK enterprise benefiting from Government funding to support jobs and growth in Cornwall and providing a critical mineral to support our green industrial revolution. We are looking forward to working further with industry as we develop our critical mineral strategy later this year.

Stephen Metcalfe: The UK COP presidency has established the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council. That will bring together the Governments of the world’s largest car markets to work towards accelerating this transition. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what role the council will play in the UK’s presidency year, ahead of COP27?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The UK will continue to work through the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council for an accelerated and equitable global transition to zero emission vehicles as well as delivery of its 2022 action plan, which includes collaboration on regulations, heavy goods vehicles, infrastructure and support to developing countries. The ZEVTC will be one of the leading initiatives for international collaboration under the Glasgow breakthrough on road transport.

Wera Hobhouse: The most pressing issue for a successful roll-out of electric vehicles is grid capacity. The National Grid is a private company. Who will pay for this huge investment in the National Grid?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The ongoing work that the net zero strategy has set forward, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change continues to work on, will help build the new grids that we need, as we know that we are going to be requiring up to four times as much electricity. Also, our use of electricity will be through a much more distributed grid system. That will be ongoing work in the months and years ahead.

Peter Grant: What does the Minister think is more likely to encourage greater use of electric vehicles: the Scottish Government’s grant scheme, with up to £28,000 for the purchase of a new vehicle, or her Government’s decision to cut the equivalent grant in England to just £2,500?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Government are leading the way in supporting the transition that our vehicle manufacturers are making towards zero emission vehicles and through the work that the COP President set out, ensuring that all countries across the world will be part of the zero emissions revolution.

Coal Use Reduction

Neil Hudson: What progress he made at COP26 on reducing the use of coal.

Alok Sharma: In the Glasgow climate pact, all parties agreed to phase down the use of coal, the first ever specific mention of coal in the UN climate decision text. The global coal to clean power transition statement gained 77 signatures from countries, sub-nationals and organisations, and the Powering Past Coal Alliance grew to 165 members

Neil Hudson: I congratulate the COP President on his achievements at COP26. I welcome our move away from the use of coal, and that should include any new exploration for both thermal and metallurgical coal. With that in mind, does he agree that the UK can be a beacon to the rest of the world and we can show a progressive environmental example by not going ahead with the proposed coalmine in west Cumbria?

Alok Sharma: As my hon. Friend is aware, an independent inspector has overseen a public inquiry into the scheme and a report is now being prepared with recommendations for Ministers to consider. He will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment at this stage. However, more generally, the UK has shown leadership on coal, not least through the significant reduction over the past decade in coal use to generate our electricity.

Tim Farron: It would be entirely appropriate for the COP President to comment on that and to intervene—it is a political decision whether to go ahead with a new coalmine in Cumbria. Should he not cancel it now and instead invest in wind, hydro, marine and tidal energy that can be championed by Cumbrian businesses such as Gilkes, investing in green jobs rather than dirty, old-fashioned ones?

Alok Sharma: I thought that the hon. Gentleman liked independent processes and that is what is running now.

Topical Questions

Richard Burgon: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: I have just concluded constructive visits to Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, the respective holders of COP27 and COP28. I met a range of Government Ministers and businesses, and we agreed that we would work closely to ensure the lasting impact of climate negotiations and other climate commitments made in Glasgow.

Richard Burgon: Just days after the Glasgow COP ended, Tory Ministers were wining and dining with senior fossil fuel executives, including from Shell and BP, apparently to urge them to keep on drilling for oil and gas in the North sea. As COP President, does he not agree that, instead of being in the pockets of fossil fuel giants, Ministers should be following the United Nations’ call for an end to all new fossil fuel projects—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Topicals are meant to be short and quick. You cannot have a full statement—other people have got to get in.

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman is definitely making my job harder by the amount of hot air he is emitting—I wonder whether he will offset those emissions. Let me be clear that we have a commitment to have a managed transition in our energy mix, and that is what we are doing.

Caroline Ansell: Will COP26’s Clydebank declaration for green shipping corridors set the course for more zero emission shipping routes? That is particularly significant for  air quality for my constituents in Eastbourne and Willingdon, who live alongside the busiest shipping lane in the world.

Alok Sharma: It certainly will. The declaration aims to support the establishment of at least six green corridors by the middle of this decade while aiming to scale up activity in the following years. We definitely want to see more such green corridors in operation.

Angela Eagle: Surely a just transition means not leaving millions to cope with soaring energy prices as inflation hits its highest level for 30 years. Why will the Government not heed Labour’s suggestion to protect them by introducing a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers who have profited from the surging prices?

Greg Hands: I am surprised that the hon. Member is pursuing that line of inquiry. Labour’s motion here in this Chamber last Tuesday totally unravelled and was rejected comprehensively. The Government are taking action—we are supporting vulnerable households through winter fuel payments, cold weather payments, the household support fund and so on—but the Labour proposal unravelled tragically last week, Mr Speaker, as you saw.

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend is well aware of my concern about deforestation in the Amazon. As he deals with the Brazilian Government over the coming months, will he put pressure on them to make sure that they not only keep their commitments made at COP26, but stop the illegal deforestation that is taking place now?

Alok Sharma: My right hon. Friend raises a really important point, and of course I will continue to work very closely with Brazil on the commitments that have been made to make sure they are implemented. I will be  speaking to Minister Leite, the Environment Minister, in the coming weeks to reaffirm those commitments and our view that they should be followed through.

Bambos Charalambous: With millions of species at risk of extinction and deforestation accelerating across the globe, it is imperative that we limit global warming to 1.5 degrees to halt this catastrophic decline, so will the Minister now accept Labour’s call for a net zero and nature test to align public spending and infrastructure decisions with our climate and nature commitments?

Alok Sharma: If the hon. Member was at COP 26 or was following what was going on, he will have seen the huge commitment to protecting nature. Of course, we also want to ensure that CBD15 is a success.

James Sunderland: How does the COP President reconcile his narrative of the global leadership required for COP26 and net zero with the acute reality that we still need to extract hydrocarbons, not least to keep energy costs down?

Alok Sharma: Of course, as I said earlier, we want to see an orderly transition to net zero in our energy mix, which includes oil and gas, but the answer to delivering net zero, keeping bills under control and ensuring security of supply is to continue to build out our world-leading offshore wind sector and invest in nuclear and hydrogen, as this Government are doing.

Anna McMorrin: The Government have just upped the risk of climate-triggered wars in the coming decades from medium to high. Our planet is on fire, but this Government are too busy fighting fires in Downing Street instead of showing leadership, and slashing aid for climate-vulnerable communities, locking them into fossil fuel. How long will it be before they stop being embroiled in their own scandals and realise that we are embroiled in a climate scandal?

Alok Sharma: The Prime Minister has absolutely been leading on this agenda for years—[Interruption.] He has been leading for years. I would just say that it was a Conservative Government who put in place net zero by 2050, and Members should just look at the commitments we have made under the current Prime Minister, with our nationally determined contribution and our carbon budget 6. We are leading the world when it comes to going green.

Jacob Young: The Minister will know that Teesside is the hydrogen capital of the UK, where we already produce more than 50% of our commercially viable hydrogen, so will he consider throwing his weight behind Redcar and Cleveland’s bid to become home to the UK’s first hydrogen village by 2025?

Greg Hands: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He knows that we are co-operating very closely internationally and domestically on hydrogen. On Redcar’s bid, he is a passionate advocate for all things related to Redcar, and his message has been heard loud and clear by the Government.

Martin Docherty: Two years ago, Together Energy was providing 350 jobs in my constituency, leading on innovation for small and medium-sized utility companies. Yesterday, it went bust. While his Prime Minister and his Chancellor are missing in action doing other stuff, can the Minister tell me what his Government and Ofgem are doing to support small and medium-sized utility companies deliver zero emissions and deliver jobs in my constituency?

Alok Sharma: I am not going to take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman. He knows very well that the Government are working very closely with the sector. He knows that we have put in place a price cap, and he knows that, when it comes to jobs, this Government are investing, and we want to see 2 million green jobs created over the coming decades.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Fleur Anderson—[Interruption.]

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] I certainly do not expect any more. For the moment, we have one more question before Prime Minister’s questions.

Fleur Anderson: If the Government had not scrapped the green homes grant last year, they would have saved thousands of households money. When will the Government reform and bring back the green homes grant?

Alok Sharma: We are supporting the green transition across all sectors through the work we are doing. I am sure that the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change would be delighted to speak to the hon. Lady about the issue she raises.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Lindsay Hoyle: The British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Wendy Chamberlain: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday  19 January.

Boris Johnson: I will shortly update the House on this country’s fantastic progress in tackling covid-19, including through our booster programme, which is enabling us to ease plan B measures and restore the ancient liberties of this country.
I know that the whole House will be delighted that Her Majesty the Queen has given permission for a special medal to be awarded to all those who were deployed to Kabul. Operation Pitting saw our servicemen and women deliver the largest British evacuation since the second world war. The whole country can be immensely proud of their service.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Wendy Chamberlain: Last year, we were told by the Prime Minister that there were no Downing Street parties. Then it turned out that there were parties, but we were assured that no rules were broken. Last week, we heard that rules may have been broken, but that he thought it was a work event. Yesterday, from the man who wrote the rules, we heard, “Well, nobody told me what those rules were.” Five weeks ago, the people of North Shropshire were clear, and the people of North East Fife are being clear to me now: no matter the excuse, there is no excuse for taking the British people for fools. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is now time for him to resign?

Boris Johnson: No, but as I said to the House last week, I apologise sincerely for any misjudgments that were made. The hon. Lady must contain her impatience and wait for the inquiry next week before drawing any of the conclusions she has just asserted.

John Baron: The latest evidence and research show that the UK is the most attractive country in the world for young people across the G20. Amid intense soft power competition from other countries, including China, will the Prime Minister assure me and other members of the British Council all-party parliamentary group that the Government will meet the British Council’s funding requirements to ensure that it does not have to close any more offices overseas and that it can commit all its energy to retaining our top spot?

Boris Johnson: I entirely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for the British Council, which is a wonderful institution that we all love. That is why, through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, we are providing £189 million of funding this year—a 27% increase on the previous financial year—in spite of all the difficulties this country is facing. We have also provided a loan facility of up to £145 million to support all the wonderful work the British Council does.

Keir Starmer: Can I start by warmly welcoming—[Interruption.] Can I start—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I expect people to listen to the Prime Minister. I certainly do not want the Leader of the Opposition to be shouted down. You might not like the day, but this is the day that we have got.

Keir Starmer: I am not bothered, Mr Speaker. I assumed it was directed at the Prime Minister. [Laughter.]
Can I start by warmly welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) to his new place in the House and to the parliamentary Labour party? Like so many people up and down the country, he has concluded that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party have shown themselves incapable of offering the leadership and Government this country deserves, whereas the Labour party stands ready to provide an alternative Government that the country can be proud of. The Labour party has changed and so has the Conservative party. He, and anyone else who wants to build a new Britain built on decency, security, prosperity and respect, is welcome in my Labour party.
Every week, the Prime Minister offers absurd and frankly unbelievable defences to the Downing Street parties, and each week it unravels. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I have been elected to the Chair. I do not need to be told how to conduct the business. If somebody wants to do some direction, I will start directing them out of the Chamber.

Keir Starmer: The Conservative Members are very noisy. I am sure the Chief Whip has told them to bring their own boos! [Laughter.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us try to get on with questions. It is going to be a long day otherwise.

Keir Starmer: First, the Prime Minister said there were no parties. Then the video landed, blowing that defence out of the water. Next, he said he was sickened and furious when he found out about the parties, until it turned out that he himself was at the Downing Street garden party. Then, last week, he said he did not realise he was at a party and—surprise, surprise—no one believed him. So this week he has a new defence: “Nobody warned me that it was against the rules.” That is it—nobody told him! Since the Prime Minister wrote the rules, why on earth does he think his new defence is going to work for him?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the rules. Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) across the aisle earlier on. Of course, we must wait for the outcome of the inquiry, but I renew what I have said. When it comes to his view—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we have a little less? I want to hear the Prime Minister like I wanted to hear the Leader of the Opposition. I want the same courtesy from both sides.

Boris Johnson: If we had listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about covid restrictions, which is the substance of his question, then we would have been in lockdown after July. This is the truth. If we had listened to the Labour Front Bench in the run-up to Christmas and new year, we would have stayed in restrictions, with huge damage to the economy. It is because of the judgments I have taken and we have taken in Downing Street that we now have the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and GDP is now back up above pre-pandemic levels.
As for Bury South—[Interruption.] As for Bury South, let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Conservative party won Bury South for the first time in generations under this Prime Minister, with an agenda of uniting, levelling up and delivering for the people of Bury South, and we will win again in Bury South at the next election under this Prime Minister.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Look, it is important that I hear, and I want to hear both sides. I do not want this continuous chant. If it continues, there will be fewer people on the Conservative Benches, and the same on the Labour side. I expect both sides to be heard with courtesy. [Interruption.]

Keir Starmer: Bury South is now a Labour seat, Prime Minister. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Did somebody want me to apologise? Somebody shouted, “Apologise”. I hope it was not aimed at me. We will also have less from that corner.

Keir Starmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Not only did the Prime Minister write the rules, but some of his staff say they did warn him about attending the party on 20 May 2020. I have heard the Prime Minister’s very carefully crafted response to that accusation; it almost sounds like a lawyer wrote it, so I will be equally careful with my question. When did the Prime Minister first become aware that any of his staff had concerns about the 20 May party?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for repeating the question that he has already asked. We have answered that: it is for the inquiry to come forward with an explanation of what happened, and I am afraid that he simply must wait. He asks about my staff and what they were doing and what they have told me. I can tell him that they have taken decisions throughout this pandemic—that he has opposed—to open up in July, as I have said, to mount the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe and to double the speed of the booster roll-out, with the result that we have the most open economy in Europe, and we have more people in employment and more employees on the payroll now than there were before the pandemic began. That is what my staff have been working on in Downing Street, and I am proud of them.

Keir Starmer: So apparently Sue Gray is going to tell the Prime Minister when he first became aware that his staff had concerns about 20 May. His account gets more extraordinary with each version of his defence. If the Prime Minister’s new defence were true, it requires him to suggest that his staff are not being truthful when they say they warned him about the party. It requires the Prime Minister to expect us to believe that, while every other person who was invited on 20 May to the party was told it was a social occasion, he alone was told it was a work meeting. It also requires the Prime Minister to ask us to accept that, as he waded through the empty bottles and platters of sandwiches, he did not realise it was a party. Does the Prime Minister realise how ridiculous that sounds?

Boris Johnson: I have said what I have said about the events in No. 10 and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait for the report. He asks for further clarification. I think lots of people are interested—I say this entirely in passing—in the exact legal justification from m’learned Leader of the Opposition for the picture of him drinking a bottle of beer. Perhaps he can tell the House about that in a minute. What I can tell the House is that, throughout the pandemic, people across Government have been working flat out to protect the British public with huge quantities of personal protective equipment, so we can now make 80% of it in this country, with the biggest and most generous furlough scheme virtually anywhere in the world, and with the fastest—and by the way, if we had listened to the Opposition, we would have stayed in the European Medicines Agency and we would never have been able to deliver the vaccine roll-out at the speed that we did.

Keir Starmer: If the Prime Minister thinks the only accusation that he faces is that he once had a beer with a takeaway, Operation Save Big Dog is in deeper trouble than I thought!
If a Prime Minister misleads Parliament, should they resign?

Boris Johnson: Let us be absolutely clear: the right hon. and learned Gentleman is continuing to ask a series of questions which he knows will be fully addressed by the inquiry. He is wasting this House’s time. He is wasting the people’s time. He continues to be completely irrelevant to the—[Interruption.] We have an inquiry, and I am not going to anticipate that inquiry any further. What I can tell him is that because of the judgments that were taken in Downing Street, because of the willingness of the British people to put trust, by the way, in those judgments and to come forward in huge numbers to get vaccinated, which people did—and I thank them for it from the bottom of my heart—and because they listened to our messages, we now have the fastest growing economy in the G7 and youth unemployment, which the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) ought to care about, at a record low.

Keir Starmer: I know it is not going well, Prime Minister, but look on the bright side: at least the staff at No. 10 know how to pack a suitcase.
Last year, Her Majesty the Queen sat alone when she marked the passing of the man she had been married to for 73 years. She followed the rules of the country that she leads. On the eve of that funeral, a suitcase was filled with booze and wheeled into Downing Street. A DJ played, and staff partied late into the night. The Prime Minister has been forced to hand an apology to Her Majesty the Queen. Is he not ashamed that he did not hand in his resignation at the same time?

Boris Johnson: I understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues to politicise—

Lindsay Hoyle: We normally would not, and quite rightly, mention the royal family. We do not get into discussions on the royal family.

Boris Johnson: In that case, I must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his question.

Lindsay Hoyle: I have dealt with it. [Interruption.] Order. Prime Minister, we do not want to go through that again. I will make the decisions. The answer is that we are going back to Keir Starmer so that he can ask his final question.

Keir Starmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
While the Prime Minister wastes energy defending the indefensible, people’s energy bills are rocketing. Labour has a plan to deal with it: axe VAT for everyone, provide extra support for the hardest hit, and pay for it with a one-off tax on oil and gas companies—a serious plan for a serious problem. What are the Government offering? Nothing. They are too distracted by their own chaos to do their job. While Labour was setting out plans to heat homes, the Prime Minister was buying a fridge to keep the party wine chilled. While we were setting out plans to keep bills down, he was planning  parties. While we were setting out plans to save jobs in the steel industry, he was trying to save just one job: his own. Does not the country deserve so much better than this out-of-touch, out-of-control, out-of-ideas and soon to be out-of-office Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: I will tell you what this Government have been doing to look after the people of this country throughout this pandemic and beyond. We have been cutting the cost of living and helping them with the living wage. We have been cutting taxes for people on low pay. We have been increasing payments for people suffering the costs of fuel—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say to everyone here that our constituents want to hear the questions and the answers? The great British public—the members of this United Kingdom whom you are representing—need to hear. Please, let us hear the questions and answers.

Boris Johnson: We will continue to look after people throughout this pandemic and beyond, but we have also been cutting crime by 10% and putting 11,000 more police officers out on the streets. There was record home building last year—more homes that at any time in the last 30 years. We are building 40 new hospitals. Gigabit broadband has gone up from 9% coverage in our country to 65% already. As I said already—I think three or four times today—we have more employees on the payroll now than before the pandemic began, and youth unemployment is at a record low.
When the history of this pandemic comes to be written and the history of the Labour party comes to be written—believe me, it is history and will remain history—it will show that we delivered while they dithered, and that we vaccinated while they vacillated. The reason we have been able to lift restrictions faster than any other country in Europe, and we have the most open economy and the most open society in Europe, is thanks to the booster roll-out and thanks to the work of staff up and down Whitehall, across Government and throughout the NHS, and I am intensely proud of what this Government have done.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You’ll get more if you let the questions come. I call Mark Pawsey.

Mark Pawsey: Following on from the excellent news on the economy and jobs, the Prime Minister will remember my question to him last June about the proposals for a gigafactory in Coventry. Last week, local councils granted outline planning permission to create 6,000 new skilled jobs and secure many thousands of others, to inject £2.5 billion into our local economy and to level up across our region. With fast-rising demand for greener and cleaner electric cars, may I ask him for his support to ensure the swift delivery of this vital project?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for this wonderful project. We are supporting the electric vehicle industry. We made another £350 million available through the automotive transformation fund, on top of the commitment of half a billion  pounds we have already made in a 10-point plan. I know that the campaign for Coventry airport is an excellent one, and I look forward to seeing how it develops.

Ian Blackford: This week was supposed to be Operation Save Big Dog, but it has quickly become Operation Dog’s Dinner. Over the past two days, we have had more damaging revelations about Downing Street rule breaking, more evidence that Parliament has been misled, and an even longer list of ludicrous—absolutely ludicrous—excuses from the Prime Minister. First he claimed there were no parties, then that he was not present; then he admitted he was at them but he did not know it was a party, and the latest sorry excuse is really the most pathetic of them all: “Nobody told me.” Nobody told the Prime Minister he was breaking his own rules—absolutely pathetic. [Interruption.] What a look—the Prime Minister laughing once again. He is laughing at the British public, taking the public for fools. Nobody believes him. Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility and resign? Go, Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: No, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question again. I remind him that there is an inquiry, which is due to conclude. I believe he is wrong in what he asserts, but we have to wait and see what the inquiry says. The most important thing from the point of view of the UK Government is that we are coming out of the restrictions—I am delighted to see that that is happening in Scotland as well—which is largely thanks to the wonderful co-operation that we continue to see across the whole of the UK, although you would not think it to hear him.

Ian Blackford: Nobody is buying this act any more. There ought to be some respect and dignity from the Prime Minister. Let us remind ourselves: more than 150,000 of our citizens died and he is partying, he is laughing. It simply is not acceptable—the fake contrition, the endless excuses, the empty promises that it will be different if only we give him one last chance. This is a Prime Minister who arrogantly believes that he is above the rules; a Prime Minister who brazenly twists the truth; a Prime Minister who simply is not fit for office.
The Prime Minister’s former chief adviser says that he lied to Parliament, breaking the ministerial code—a resignation offence, Prime Minister. Public trust is haemorrhaging. With every day that passes, this Tory Government lose even more credibility. When will the Tory MPs finally do the right thing? Show the Prime Minister the door.

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that I disagree with him. When we look at the levels of trust that the British people—people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and across the whole country—have shown in the Government, the single biggest index of that trust has been their willingness to come forward voluntarily, unlike in many other countries in the world, to get vaccinated on a scale not seen anywhere else in Europe. That is because of our ability, and the NHS’s ability, to persuade people that it is the right thing. It is a fantastic thing, and by the way, it is also a tribute to the United Kingdom, because that vaccine roll-out was a UK effort.

Mark Menzies: When it comes to exporting, as you are well aware, Mr Speaker, Fylde punches well above its weight. The Prime Minister saw that when he visited BAE Systems’ factory of the future in Lancashire last year. In addition, fantastic local businesses such as Helical Technology, Tangerine Holdings and Natures Aid are doing a great job of flying the flag for Lancashire globally. However, we also have many smaller businesses that are eager to get exporting into new markets. What steps is he taking to help Fylde businesses to make the most of Brexit and maximise their export potential?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for all he is doing to champion trade with Latin America. I have no doubt that small businesses such as Squire Hair are eager to get into those new markets, and we will do everything we can to help and support him in his efforts.

Neale Hanvey: As the cost of living crisis deepens, this Government’s priorities get ever more remote from my constituents. Only this week, I learned that a veteran in my constituency, James Scott, took his own life as a result of his struggle with mounting financial pressures. This is a Government who have been found to have acted unlawfully by the High Court over covid contracts and who are now preparing to write off £4.3 billion that had been allocated to those covid schemes. Why can the UK Government find billions of pounds for profiteers and fraudsters but not find the compassion to treat the people with dignity by lifting the benefits cap and reinstating the cut to universal credit?

Boris Johnson: First, I want to say how sorry I am for what the hon. Gentleman has had to say about James Scott. This Government do as much as we can to support veterans, and that is why we published the veterans action plan only the other day. We are also ensuring that we support people throughout this crisis. In my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), I mentioned many of the steps we are taking to protect people on low incomes, and we will continue to do more. The hon. Gentleman attacks the contracts for PPE, but actually I think it was an astonishing thing to be able, at great speed, to give this country 17 billion items of PPE. Thanks to the efforts of people across Whitehall, this country is now capable of producing 80% of our own PPE.

Kate Griffiths: Shortly before Christmas, my constituent Oliver Freckleton was found at home having been stabbed to death on the eve of his 20th birthday. Yesterday, his heartbroken parents held their son’s funeral. Oliver leaves behind a partner and baby daughter, and two teenagers have been arrested for his murder. This tragic event leaves behind a devastated family and friends, and a very worried community. I am grateful for the work that Staffordshire police is undertaking to tackle violent crime in my constituency, and the recruiting of 149 additional police officers is welcome, but does the Prime Minister agree that a multi-stakeholder approach is vital to tackling crimes among our young people? What can the Government do to support not just the police but schools, colleges and local authorities in working to address this issue?

Boris Johnson: I am very sad to hear the news of the loss of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Oliver. As is the case with so many victims of violent crime, the answer is not just policing, though that is vitally important and it is why we are investing so massively in 20,000 more police officers and supporting them with toughening the law. But it is also, as she rightly says, important to get all the institutions of the state to work together: schools, colleges, social services, the health service and mental health service as well.

Jessica Morden: Why is it so hard for this Prime Minister to admit that he made the rules, so he should know the rules and he should follow the rules? Everyone out there knows that it is as simple as that. If he had any shred of compassion for all those out there who have suffered through this, he would go.

Boris Johnson: I entirely understand people’s feelings and I entirely support what the hon. Lady says about someone obeying the rules when they make the rules. She is completely right. On the other hand, I urge her to wait, as I have said to Opposition Members, until next week.

Paul Howell: The Opposition have been told that there is going to be an inquiry, but they have wasted every single question on one issue while my constituents want us to get on with other things. In January 2021, the Government estimated that at least £800 million would be released from the dormant asset scheme extension. Does the Prime Minister agree that funding through a new community wealth fund would be a catalyst to level up the most left-behind communities and that the Dormant Assets Bill should include specific provision for a consultation on the scope, shape and nature of such a fund?

Boris Johnson: We will certainly be legislating to expand the dormant assets scheme to include new financial assets, which would unlock an estimated £880 million. We will be considering how to spend the English portion of that. The community wealth fund that my hon. Friend proposes is certainly an option and I thank him very much.

Peter Grant: My constituent Anne has told me that a friend saw the ambulance outside the house on the night Anne’s husband died, but she was not allowed to go into the house to comfort her friend. Anne’s husband went to his rest in an almost empty building while scores of his friends stood freezing outside. Anne went back to an empty house to grieve for the rest of the day alone. My constituent Susan was not allowed to go in the ambulance or even to follow the ambulance, blue light and all, after her husband had a heart attack. Other constituents had the heartbreaking realisation that they were not allowed to go into care homes to break the news in person to their relatives that someone in the family had died. In their words, not mine, the Prime Minister is a “charlatan”, a “hypocrite” and a “liar”. What will he now say to my constituents—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know that you are repeating what your constituents said, but I want more moderate and temperate language. Prime Minister, you might want to deal just with the general question, and certainly not the end of it.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to repeat that I understand the feelings that the hon. Gentleman has relayed to me, as I said last week. I sympathise very deeply with the feelings and I understand why people feel as they do. I thank people very much for everything that they have done. I recognise the enormous sacrifice that people have made. I apologise for the misjudgments that may have been made in No. 10 by me and anybody else, but please can I ask him to wait for the inquiry to conclude?

Andrew Lewer: I recently attended a debate held by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) seeking a central London memorial for the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. In it, I referenced my constituent, the Mosquito pilot Mr George Pritchard, who is 98 next week and is one of the last surviving members of the unit. Will the Prime Minister join my hon. Friend, me and Mr Pritchard in backing that fitting and needed memorial?

Boris Johnson: I will certainly do what I can to support it, although of course, as my hon. Friend knows, such memorials are a matter for local authorities. What the House and the Government can certainly do is ensure that memorials are not desecrated, as they have been across the country, and that we support legislation that penalises those who indulge in such desecration.

Diana R. Johnson: When a Prime Minister is spending his time trying to convince the Great British public that he is actually stupid rather than dishonest, is it not time that he goes, now?

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I think that was a question for you rather than me. Look, I have made my point. I think that the British public have responded to what the Government have had to say in the most eloquent way possible. They have beaten covid so far. They have helped to defeat covid so far with the steps that they have taken by getting vaccinated and implementing plan B, and I thank them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just for the Prime Minister and for the record, it is not Speaker’s questions.

Robert Goodwill: Our armed forces have earned the respect and admiration of our nation, not least during the pandemic. On Remembrance Sunday we commemorate their sacrifices, but on Armed Forces Day, 25 June, we will celebrate all that is amazing about our Army, Navy and Air Force. In a normal year we see about 20,000 people at the event in Scarborough, but this year we will finally host National Armed Forces Day, which has been postponed twice. Will the Prime Minister pull out all the stops on land, sea and air to make this truly an event to remember?

Boris Johnson: I have no doubt that Armed Forces Day will be absolutely spectacular across the country, and that Scarborough will make a terrific and a notable contribution.

Hywel Williams: Last April I asked the Prime Minister whether he agreed with the principle that politicians should not lie. He replied that he concurred
“with the basic principle that the hon. Gentleman has just enunciated.”—[Official Report, 14 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 317.]
Would he like to amend the record?

Boris Johnson: No.

Simon Hoare: The vast majority of people, and indeed the vast majority of politicians, across Northern Ireland believe that whatever the question, double-jobbing is not the answer. May I urge my right hon. Friend to listen to the majority and ensure that the Government amendment is not moved in the other place later today?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am advised that the amendment in question will indeed be withdrawn.

Liz Twist: My constituents are rightly angry about the Prime Minister’s behaviour, but while Downing Street fights to save his political life, people across the north-east are worrying about rising food and energy bills, rising unemployment and rising levels of child poverty. He talks about levelling up, but my constituents are seeing opportunities cut. Does he agree that his Government have failed and it is time for him to go?

Boris Johnson: No, I really do not agree with the hon. Lady, and I do not think that she can have been following anything that has been said this afternoon. We have unemployment falling to near-record lows, and we have job vacancies at record highs. That is what Conservative Governments do: they create jobs and get the economy moving.

David Davis: Like many on the Government Benches, I have spent weeks and months defending the Prime Minister against often angry constituents. I have reminded them of his success in delivering Brexit and the vaccines, and many other things. But I expect my leaders to shoulder the responsibility for the actions they take. Yesterday the Prime Minister did the opposite of that, so I will remind him of a quotation that will be altogether too familiar to him. Leo Amery said to Neville Chamberlain:
“You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing… In the name of God, go.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1150.]—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Boris Johnson: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I do not know what he is talking about. I do not know what quotation he is alluding to. What I can tell him, as I have told the House repeatedly throughout the pandemic, is that I take full responsibility for everything done in this Government, and throughout the pandemic.

Stephen Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Leader of the House that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives is “a lightweight”?

Boris Johnson: The Conservative approach to the Union is one that I think is right for our country. We want to keep it together. Conservatives in Scotland do an excellent job, which is why their stout defence of the Union was repaid at the last election. Labour is increasingly endangering our Union in Scotland.

Flick Drummond: Last week many people welcomed the five-year moratorium on smart motorways. However, the M27 is due to be  opened as a smart motorway in a couple of months. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give my constituents, and others in the rest of south Hampshire, that the M27 will be safe, to give them confidence to  use it?

Boris Johnson: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the risks associated with the smart motorway scheme. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is looking at it right now.

Covid-19 Update

Boris Johnson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on our progress against omicron and the review of our plan B measures. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can Members please leave quickly and quietly?

Boris Johnson: Within hours of learning from scientists in South Africa about the emergence of a new covid variant last November, this Government acted to introduce balanced and proportionate restrictions at our borders to slow the seeding of omicron in our country. As we learnt more about this highly transmissible new variant, we implemented the plan B measures that we had prepared precisely in case our situation deteriorated, encouraging people to change their behaviour to slow the spread of the virus and buying crucial time to get boosters into arms.
We made the big call to refocus our national health service, necessarily requiring the difficult postponement of many other appointments, so that we could double the speed of the booster programme. Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our NHS and its volunteers, we delivered the fastest booster programme in Europe, reaching half our population before any other European country. There are more than 36 million boosters now in arms across the UK, including more than 90% of all over-60s in England.
Taking a balanced approach, we resisted calls from others to shut down our country all over again. Many nations across Europe have endured further winter lockdowns, and many have seen hospitality curfews and nightclubs closed, capacity limits at sports stadiums, the return of social distancing and, in some places, Christmas and new year as good as cancelled. But this Government took a different path. We kept England open and we supported those businesses that faced reduced demand because of the response to plan B measures. Although we must continue to remain cautious, the data are showing that, time and again, this Government got the toughest decisions right.
Today’s latest Office for National Statistics data show clearly that infection levels are falling in England and, although there are some places where cases are likely to continue rising, including in primary schools, our scientists believe it is likely that the omicron wave has now peaked nationally. There remain, of course, significant pressures on the NHS across our country, especially in the north-east and north-west, but hospital admissions, which were doubling every nine days just two weeks ago, have now stabilised, with admissions in London even falling, and the number of people in intensive care not only remains low but is actually also falling.
This morning the Cabinet concluded that because of the extraordinary booster campaign, together with the way the public have responded to the plan B measures, we can return to plan A in England and allow plan B regulations to expire. As a result, from the start of Thursday next week, mandatory certification will end. Organisations can of course choose to use the NHS covid pass voluntarily, but we will end the compulsory use of covid status certification in England.
From now on, the Government are no longer asking people to work from home. People should now speak to their employer about arrangements for returning to the office. Having looked at the data carefully, the Cabinet concluded that once regulations lapse, the Government will no longer mandate the wearing of face masks anywhere. From tomorrow, we will no longer require face masks in classrooms, and the Department for Education will shortly remove national guidance on their use in communal areas.
In the country at large, we will continue to suggest the use of face coverings in enclosed or crowded spaces, particularly where people come into contact with people they do not normally meet, but we will trust the judgment of the British people and no longer criminalise anyone who chooses not to wear one. The Government will also ease restrictions further on visits to care homes, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will set out plans in the coming days.
As we return to plan A, the House will know that some measures still remain, including those on self-isolation. In particular, it is still a legal requirement for those who have tested positive for covid to self-isolate. On Monday, we reduced the isolation period to five full days with two negative tests, and there will soon come a time when we can remove the legal requirement to self-isolate altogether—just as we do not place legal obligations on people to isolate if they have flu. As covid becomes endemic, we will need to replace legal requirements with advice and guidance urging people with the virus to be careful and considerate of others.
The self-isolation regulations expire on 24 March, at which point I very much expect not to renew them. Indeed, were the data to allow, I would like to seek a vote in this House to bring that date forward. In advance of that, we will set out our long-term strategy for living with covid-19, explaining how we hope and intend to protect our liberty and avoid restrictions in future by relying instead on medical advances, especially the vaccines which have already saved so many lives.
But to make that possible, we must all remain cautious during these last weeks of winter. When there are still over 16,000 people in hospital in England alone, the pandemic is not over—and make no mistake, omicron is not a mild disease for everyone, especially if you are not vaccinated. Just look at the numbers in intensive care in other countries where vaccination rates are far lower. Indeed, from our NHS data, we know that around 90% of people in intensive care are not boosted. So I urge Members across the House to do everything possible to encourage any remaining constituents who have not done so to get boosted now. For the next few weeks, I encourage everyone across the country to continue with the behaviours that we know help to keep everybody safe—washing hands, letting fresh air in, getting tested and self-isolating if positive, and, as I say, thinking about wearing a face covering in crowded and enclosed settings.
Omicron tested us, just as alpha and delta did before, but let us remember some of what we have achieved. We were the first nation in the world to administer a vaccine. We were the fastest in Europe to roll it out, because, outside the European Medicines Agency, this Government made the big call to pursue our own British procurement strategy rather than opting back into the EU scheme as some people urged. We created a world-beating testing  programme, the largest in Europe, and procured the most antivirals of any country in Europe too, because this Government made the big call to invest early in lateral flow tests and in cutting-edge drugs to protect the most vulnerable. We have delivered the fastest booster campaign in Europe, and we are the first to emerge from the omicron wave, because the Government made the big call to focus on our NHS and to refocus our activity by leading the Get Boosted Now campaign.
That is why we have retained the most open economy and society anywhere across the European continent, and the fastest-growing economy in the G7—because we made that tough decision to open up last summer when others said that we should not, and to keep things open in the winter when others wanted them shut. This week the World Health Organisation said that while the global situation remains challenging, the United Kingdom can start to see the
“light at the end of the tunnel”.
That is no accident of history. Confronted by the nation’s biggest challenge since the second world war and the worst pandemic since 1918, any Government would get some things wrong, but this Government got the big things right. I commend the statement to the House.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Throughout the pandemic, the British public have made enormous sacrifices to limit the spread of the virus through staying at home, social distancing and—unlike the Prime Minister—cancelling parties. I thank everybody who has followed the rules and I thank the NHS staff and volunteers who have rolled out the booster jab.
The Labour party does not want to see restrictions in place any longer than necessary. We will support the relaxation of plan B as long as the science says that it is safe, so will the Prime Minister share the scientific evidence behind his decision and reassure the public that he is acting to protect their health and not just his job?
The 438 deaths recorded yesterday are a solemn reminder that the pandemic is not over. We need to remain vigilant and learn the lessons from the Government’s mistakes. With new variants highly likely, we must have a robust plan to live well with covid—so where is it? The Prime Minister is too distracted to do the job. And it is not just the Prime Minister who is letting us down. Where is the Health Secretary’s plan to prepare for another wave of infections? Why is the Chancellor not working with British manufacturers to shore up our domestic supplies of tests? Where is the Foreign Secretary’s plan to help vaccinate the world? They are all too busy plotting their leadership campaigns to keep the public safe.
While the Conservative party tears itself apart, jostling for position and looking inward, the Labour party is focused on the national interest, filling their void. We have a plan, though the Prime Minister does not. We would train and retain a reserve army of volunteer vaccinators. We would build a supply of test kits made in Britain to protect us from global shortages. We would raise statutory sick pay and make all workers eligible, keep schools open by improving ventilation, and break  the endless cycle of new variants by playing our part in vaccinating the world. We would produce a road map for decision making to ensure efficient action when it is demanded, stop the short-sighted sell-off of the UK’s vaccine manufacturing centre, and never again allow our NHS and social care service to be so run down, underfunded, understaffed and overstretched as it has been over the last decade of a Tory Government. Labour has a plan to live well with covid and secure our lives, livelihoods and liberties. Where is his?

Boris Johnson: I would be happy to share the scientific advice on which we have taken the decision, of course. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can see it—it is there for everybody to consult. He asked about our testing abilities. We are conducting about 1.25 million tests a day and we have the biggest capability to do tests of any country in Europe. As I promised the House—I seem to remember that he attacked me at the time—we have a world-beating testing industry and a massive diagnostics facility that we never had before.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman attacks the Government over the distribution of vaccines to the rest of the world. We have already done 30 million and we will do 100 million by June, and 2.5 billion AstraZeneca vaccines have been distributed around the world at cost price thanks to the deal that the UK Government did with AstraZeneca. He talks about funding the NHS, but Labour voted against the funding that we will need to clear the covid backlogs and fund our NHS.
Throughout the pandemic, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been absolutely shameless in veering from one position to the next, and he has been wrong about virtually every single important decision. He was wrong about keeping schools open—do you remember, Mr Speaker, that he consistently refused to say that they were safe because of what his paymasters in the union were telling him? He was wrong about going forward from lockdown on 19 July—do you remember, Mr Speaker, that he said it was reckless? He was totally wrong. Labour Front-Bench Members were wrong about going through Christmas and new year with plan B as we did—they said that we needed a road map back to lockdown. He did—that guy did! Oh, no—wait. Maybe it was actually the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)—that guy! They said that they wanted a road map back to lockdown. Above all, they tried to undermine the vaccine taskforce—they said that we should not be spending £675,000 of taxpayers’ money on outreach to vaccine-hesitant groups. That is their idea of priority spending.
It has been absolutely miserable listening to those on the Opposition Front Bench because they have had nothing useful to say. They have flip-flopped opportunistically from one position to the other. Mr Speaker, did you get any idea from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now whether or not he supports what we are doing? No. [Interruption.] So he does support it. Okay, he supports it this week, but what you can be certain of, Mr Speaker, is that if he thinks there is any political opportunity in opposing it next week, he will not hesitate to do so. He has been Captain Hindsight throughout and he has had absolutely nothing useful to say or to contribute.

Theresa May: I refer the House to my entry the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Many of my constituents work in the aviation sector. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement about plan B restrictions, but I note that he made no reference to the tests that are still required for people who come into England. If we are going to learn to live with covid, we need to facilitate travel, so will he take this opportunity to announce that when plan B restrictions are removed next week the Government will also make it clear that there will be no test requirements for anybody who enters England and is fully vaccinated?

Boris Johnson: We are certainly reviewing the testing arrangements for travel and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will make a statement on that in the next few days. It is important that everybody in the country understands that wherever they want to go in the world, getting their booster will be a pretty crucial thing to do.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
We are all grateful that the data suggests we have turned a corner in the omicron wave and that the success of the vaccination programme in particular gives us cause to be hopeful in the months ahead, but although it is declining, the level of infection is still undoubtedly high and the NHS remains under pressure. That is why caution is the key, rather than the Prime Minister’s strategy of throwing caution to the wind.
Baseline measures such as face coverings in indoor public places and working from home where possible—which Scotland still has in place throughout—are extremely important in the weeks ahead, as is the guidance on lateral flow tests. Will the Prime Minister guarantee—[Interruption.] Perhaps he can come off his phone, because this is important. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that lateral flow tests will remain free as they are required and put to bed the speculation that their provision free at the point of need will be removed?
Although the data gives us cause to be optimistic, the real problem for the Prime Minister is that no matter what the data has said today, he had no choice but to throw caution to the wind. The pathetic and unbelievable excuses—that he does not know his own rules—have left the Prime Minister weak. He is unable to lead on this issue or on any other. The public cannot trust a single word that the Prime Minister says: any shred of credibility has gone.
In a global pandemic that, as the World Health Organisation is cautioning, is nowhere near over, and during which new variants are likely to emerge, it is deeply concerning that we have at the helm a Prime Minister like this who is simply not fit to lead. Even though the figures thankfully give us cause to be hopeful, it is clear that the Prime Minister cannot carry on when his credibility has all gone.

Boris Johnson: I repeat the points that I made earlier to the right hon. Gentleman. The reason why we are in the state we are in is because of the immense co-operation there has been across the whole UK.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about testing; we will of course keep lateral flow tests free for as long as is necessary. Testing has been a fantastic example of Union collaboration. I have seen for myself tests from people in Sussex being assessed in Glasgow. I have seen the work of the UK armed services helping people across the whole UK to move people who needed treatment to wherever. It has been a fantastic example of Union collaboration and I hope the right hon. Gentleman bears that in mind.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Jeremy Hunt: At the height of the first wave, the Government had the courage to pre-order 400 million doses of vaccines without even knowing whether they worked. That has laid the foundations for our having the best vaccine programme of any large country, so I welcome today’s announcement. It will not surprise the Prime Minister, though, if I draw his attention to the fact that NHS doctors and nurses are absolutely shattered. He will have seen this week that one in six doctors say that they have had near misses or harmed patients because of exhaustion. If he does not want to accept the Select Committee’s recommendations to address the workforce crisis, what will he do to give hope to our brilliant frontline staff?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise in this matter. I thank all frontline staff and others in the NHS for what they have been doing. He is right in what he says about how tired people are; they are exhausted, but they are also working heroically and doing an incredible job. It is because there are 17,000 covid cases that we need to remain cautious, despite what we heard from the Opposition Benches. We do need to remain cautious, and we do need to make sure that we continue to recruit for our amazing NHS. There are now 44,000 more healthcare professionals than there were in 2020, and that is as a result of the recruitment by this Government.

Marsha de Cordova: We know that the vaccine still remains one of the best defences against this virus, but over the past month we have seen a slowing in the booster vaccination rates. Will the Prime Minister update the House as to when he expects a completion date for the booster vaccination, and will he also set out a plan as to how he will encourage take-up of the vaccination among certain groups, particularly young people?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point and I am grateful to her. There is a job of work for all of us to do in reaching out to certain groups. At the moment, it is not actually hesitancy but apathy that is the problem. Omicron is seen wrongly to be a mild disease, so people are not getting the vaccine in the way that they might. We need to break down that apathy in those groups, and we are doing everything that we can to do that. The numbers are rising the whole time, but we want them to rise faster.

Andrea Leadsom: Mr Speaker, you would think that, today of all days, those on the Opposition Benches could be delighted for our great United Kingdom, delighted that legal  restrictions could come to an end soon, delighted about the amazing vaccine roll-out, and delighted about the strength of our economy—all a superb team effort led by my right hon. Friend. However, can he reassure me that, in the work that looks beyond that, he will very carefully assess the impact of lockdown on people having babies, and in particular those who were separated from partners unable to take part in the birth experience with them, which is so vital for giving every baby the best start for life?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for what she has just said. Her point about birth partners being able to attend is unbelievably important. I am glad that we were able to address it in spite of some difficulties. Her “best start for life” programme is unbelievably important. I know that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and for Health and Social Care are working with her to deliver it.

Edward Davey: Yesterday, the Prime Minister had to accept that he was unaware of what his own covid rules actually allowed. With millions of British people now seeing that the Prime Minister cannot even grasp what his own basic rules are, he is no longer a credible person to set the rules for others during this public health crisis. Is it not time that he accepted that the House and the country can no longer trust him with the nation’s health and that the best policy to beat covid now would be for him to resign?

Boris Johnson: Ni hao, as we say to the right hon. Gentleman. Renshi ni hen gao xing! I do not agree with him, Mr Speaker. I want to go on and deliver on the people’s priorities. This Government were elected with an enormous mandate to level up across our country, and that is what we will do.

Mark Harper: I hope the Prime Minister will forgive me for not being extraordinarily grateful for the withdrawal of these measures. I and many colleagues did not think that they were necessary in December, but I do, none the less, welcome their removal. May I draw his attention to a further policy which it would be helpful for him to reconsider? The Government’s current plan is to say to our valuable NHS staff that if they refuse to be vaccinated, they are to be sacked. Those sackings are to commence in a couple of weeks’ time, with no compensation. We know now that the Secretary of State is being advised by his own officials that, due to the lack of protection against transmission, this needs to be rethought. May I urge the Prime Minister to rethink this policy? We should not reward our NHS staff, for all their dedication, with the sack. We should allow them to continue doing the valuable work that they deliver to our great country.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend and respect very much the points of view that he has put across consistently throughout this pandemic. It has been very important that we have had a voice speaking up for freedom in the way that he has done. But I have to think also of those who will be at the bedside of elderly and vulnerable people who are dying of nosocomially acquired covid, and their feelings about  our failure to get vaccination rates up high enough within the NHS. It is a very grim problem, as I am sure my right hon. Friend can understand.
Nobody wants to have compulsory vaccination, but since the policy was announced, rates of vaccination within the NHS have gone up notably, and that is a positive thing. We will reflect on the way ahead. We do not want to drive people out of the service, but it is a professional responsibility of everybody looking after the health of others within our NHS to get vaccinated. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees with that.

Wayne David: Does the Prime Minister agree that unlike someone who attended bring-your-own-booze parties, the Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has behaved with decency and integrity throughout this entire pandemic?

Boris Johnson: The collaboration across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has been exemplary. I have enjoyed working with our partners and will continue to do so.

Edward Timpson: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, particularly the decision to remove face masks from schools. I know many staff, pupils and parents will be extremely pleased that that is now happening.
I know the Prime Minister will share my concern and that of the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, that during the pandemic we have seen many thousands of children become off the radar of schools—off school rolls. Particularly for the most vulnerable children, this causes serious problems through their exposure to crime and exploitation. Will the Prime Minister look again at some of the recommendations in my review of school exclusion in order to try to address this, so that we can track every pupil who is of school age? We should, as a basic principle, know that every child is in school, where they are in school and what their future is to be.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is an expert in this, and he is spot-on in what he says. I do not want to see excluded kids being locked in a cycle of ever-growing deprivation. He is absolutely right: the best place for kids is in school. That is why we worked so hard to keep schools open and to insist that they were safe.

Caroline Lucas: I was listening carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement. I do not think he mentioned long covid once, yet according to the Office for National Statistics, over a million people are living with this debilitating condition. Yesterday, the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus heard heartbreaking testimony from frontline NHS workers who are living with long covid, many of whom cannot return to work because of this condition. Will the Prime Minister now commit to formally recognising long covid as an occupational disease and launch a compensation scheme for frontline workers who are left unable to work after catching covid while on the frontline of our pandemic response?

Boris Johnson: I really understand the concerns of people with long covid. Everybody knows people who have had an experience with covid that has gone on  far longer than for many others, and who have had a genuinely debilitating time. We are looking at it. The research continues, and we will do whatever we can to support people with long covid, but there is a deal of work still to be done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Let us come to the most excited man: Sir Desmond Swayne.

Desmond Swayne: May I welcome wholeheartedly the announcements that have been made today? I would ask the Prime Minister to review again the need to sack unvaccinated domiciliary workers and NHS workers, and to examine the evidence that suggests that they pose a risk to their patients. Our belief is that they will not do so any more than the vaccinated.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much, but I think the evidence is clear that healthcare professionals should get vaccinated.

Richard Burgon: The rush to remove the requirement for masks, including on public transport, will cause people to fall ill and die unnecessarily. Is this not all about saving the Prime Minister’s political skin, not protecting public health? What a moral failure and what a bad way to go.

Boris Johnson: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is at variance with his Front Bench on that point, and not for the first time. I do not think he is right. I think that we should trust in the judgment of the British people, and that is what we are going to do.

Esther McVey: I, too, welcome today’s statement and the review of the plan B measures. Like Conservative colleagues, I question the need for mandatory vaccination on behalf of the 100,000 NHS workers. Given that the chief medical officer told MPs that vaccination has a “minimal impact on transmission”, is it not the case that there is no reason at all for mandatory vaccination for care workers and NHS staff? Over the past two years, these key workers have worked tirelessly on the frontline and we have clapped them. Will the Prime Minister make sure that he does not sack them? It is utterly unjustifiable.

Boris Johnson: I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but the NHS fully supports the policy because of patient safety considerations. I repeat what I have said to several Members: I really think that it is the duty of healthcare professionals to get vaccinated.

Anum Qaisar: After he called for the Prime Minister’s resignation over partygate, the branch manager of the Scottish Conservatives was referred to as a “lightweight” by the Leader of the House. How does the Prime Minister think he can maintain his position and continue to issue rules and advice on covid, when he cannot follow the rules himself?

Boris Johnson: I do not agree with the hon. Lady, with the greatest respect. She will have to wait for the inquiry to conclude. The work on rules and guidance,  which we have done together with our friends and partners in the Scottish Administration, has been exemplary and has helped the whole country to come out of covid faster than any other European country.

Siobhan Baillie: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the part about masks. I hope that they never, ever return in our schools. Sadly, it felt to many of us who were concerned about the plan B measures that there was no learning from the last two years. The impact on businesses, including in my beloved weddings sector, has been serious, with fears about next winter already affecting bookings. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are learning from facts and not just models, to provide confidence that our response to the next variant—because it will come—will be assessed accordingly?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and my hon. Friend should look at other European countries. I share her enthusiasm for the wedding industry—it is a fantastically important business sector and a massive employer in our country. I hesitate to make this point again, Mr Speaker, but other European countries have been in a far worse state in respect of the closures and restrictions they have been forced to impose. I am thrilled that we have been able to open up in the way that we have, and to get people married in the style and pomp that they want.

Marie Rimmer: Prime Minister, there is a group of vulnerable people who are not able to receive the booster. They have inquired through clinical commissioning groups, doctors and NHS England, but there is a blockage in the system. They have had three injections, but the third does not count as a booster. They were told that they would have a fourth, but they cannot access it. Please intervene and get people talking to unblock this.

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much. We are working fast to unblock it so that people get the fourth jab as fast as possible.

David Johnston: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he not just remove the work from home guidance but actively encourage people to return to the office, which is good for the economy and particularly important for younger workers, who cannot get the skills, experience and networks that they need by working from home?

Boris Johnson: I agree with that. I think that across Whitehall we need to show a lead and make sure that we get back to work—that everybody gets back to work. It is safe to do so, provided everybody exercises the due caution that I have set out today. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mick Whitley: We are, mercifully, in a much better position today than we were this time a year ago, and that is thanks to the heroic efforts of the NHS in the roll-out of vaccinations, but just 9% of people living in Africa have been vaccinated against covid-19 to date. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK is failing to honour its humanitarian obligations to the poorest countries in the world, and will he commit this Government to support a waiver of intellectual property rights on covid-19 vaccines?

Boris Johnson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of vaccinating the world. No one is safe till everybody is safe. That is clear, and we must get more vaccines to Africa in particular. I have talked to colleagues in African Governments and to African leaders about what we can do to have more fill and finish in Africa and to encourage Africa’s own supply of vaccines—that is the best long-term answer. But what we need to do in the meantime is donate our vaccines, which is what we are doing—the UK is donating £100 million by June, as I told the House earlier—and continue the roll-out of the AstraZeneca jab, which, do not forget, is basically underwritten by the British state, in the sense that it is delivered at cost, thanks to the deal that we did. That is in addition to the £548 million that we have given to COVAX and the investment in Gavi as well. So the UK has a proud record on vaccinating the world, but there is clearly much, much more that the world needs to do; I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.

Steve Brine: It is a warm welcome for the return to plan A from me; I hope it is irreversible this time. The Prime Minister knows that our young people have missed out on so much, and now they face punishment for doing the right thing when it comes to travel, especially our teenagers. They cannot prove that they have had two jabs on the NHS app if they are under 16, because they cannot access it. Even if they can access the cumbersome process involving a letter from the NHS, those with one jab and a recent infection cannot prove that at all. That effectively grounds them. Prime Minister, half-term is coming. Family memories are now, not at some point in the future. Please can we urgently, with the Health Secretary, who is sitting next to the Prime Minister, find a way that teenagers can be treated with fairness and parity with their parents on these important issues, so that they can get on with their lives with their families?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about young people and vaccinations. I do think that people need to appreciate the value of vaccinations for ease of travel, particularly boosters, but it should be as simple as possible for young people; I totally agree with him about that. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will make a statement in the next few days about what we propose to do.

Barbara Keeley: I want to quote the words of my constituent Steven Booth:
“I wish to add my name to the angry voices regarding the conduct of politicians who broke the rules during lockdown, but especially that of the Prime Minister, who demanded we follow the rules, which we did to the letter, while completely disregarding the rules themselves…This is one scandal too many.”
Mr Booth and other constituents will now have no confidence in the rules or the public health messaging from this Prime Minister, and that is a serious failing. What is the Prime Minister’s response to my constituent?

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady’s constituent for his point of view and I understand where he is coming from, but if you look at the evidence, the UK population have been amazing in the way we  have followed the guidance and followed the rules, and the results are there to be seen in what I have been able to announce today.

Ruth Edwards: I warmly welcome the lifting of restrictions and congratulate everyone involved in the booster vaccine roll-out. Mental health services in Rushcliffe have seen a huge spike in demand following the pandemic. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that mental health services will have their share of the billions of pounds of catch-up funding that this Conservative Government have awarded to the NHS and that the party opposite voted against?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is totally right. I believe the No. 1 priority for the British people is not just to keep our economy moving forward, as we are, but to make sure we clear those covid backlogs. We cannot do that without the steps the Government have taken. I thought it was amazing that the party opposite voted against them.

Stephen Flynn: Can I have confirmation from the Prime Minister? Is he getting rid of the covid rules simply because he does not understand them?

Boris Johnson: We are able to make progress on the covid rules, and to get rid of them, because of our deep understanding of the pandemic. I thank the hon. Gentleman and all our Scottish colleagues for helping to communicate what we are doing in such a way that British people across the whole UK have been able to move forward more or less together. The differences between us are far, far smaller than the similarities, about which I am very proud.

Edward Leigh: Only this morning, I received an email on behalf of deaf pupils who have been so disadvantaged by forced mask wearing in schools. But for this Prime Minister, we would have had far more severe lockdowns and restrictions. Will he please remain true to his instincts and sweep away all the remaining controls, such as isolation, that are crippling the NHS? To paraphrase Leo Amery, “For God’s sake, keep going.”

Boris Johnson: I have not sat here quite long enough—nothing like it, in my view—but, yes, my right hon. Friend is right about schools. It is very important to keep them going. I think masks erode our ability to educate properly and to learn properly, and I am glad they are going.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Today, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Royal College of Nursing and others have rightly raised concerns about the rationality, proportionality and recklessness of mandatory vaccination for NHS staff. With approximately 100,000 vacancies already, does the Prime Minister think that, come April, sacking more than 70,000 NHS staff will increase or decrease the pressures on our NHS?

Boris Johnson: I hear the hon. Lady’s point, which many other colleagues have made today. I am glad the numbers are going up, but her Front Benchers do not agree with her. They agree with the  policy, as far as I understand their position. I repeat that I think it is the duty of healthcare professionals to get vaccinated.

Miriam Cates: I am absolutely delighted with my right hon. Friend’s announcement that children will no longer be required to wear a mask in school. This is a welcome and evidence-based return to prioritising the interests of our children, who have suffered greatly during the pandemic.
My right hon. Friend knows I have not always been a supporter of restrictions, but does he agree that under a Labour Government, far from being the freest country in Europe, we would have had longer, harder lockdowns and school closures, causing immeasurably more harm to the poorest, the youngest and the most vulnerable in our society?

Boris Johnson: I see the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) shaking his head on the Opposition Front Bench. He was cruelly exposed last week as having repeatedly called for lockdowns. The reality is that the Opposition would have kept us in lockdown in July, and their response to omicron was to call for a road map back into lockdown. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) is totally right.

Khalid Mahmood: In Birmingham we have been trying to tackle areas of low vaccine take-up, which has been difficult. When we go to people now, they say, “These rules aren’t good enough for the Prime Minister and Downing Street. This Prime Minister couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it.” What should I now say to my constituents to ensure they take up the vaccine?

Boris Johnson: “Vote Conservative,” obviously. “But get boosted now”—that is what I would say.

Mark Jenkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for standing firm immediately before Christmas in the face of much pressure from the Opposition for further restrictions to effectively cancel Christmas. It is due to his instincts that we are the freest country in the western world and leading the way in showing the rest of the world how to live with covid. Throughout the pandemic we have had masks in schools in Cumbria, even when the guidance did not recommend them, to no effect on case rates when kids started mixing again, as proven by the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who has been struck by covid a number of times, despite allegedly wearing his mask. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the guidance will go further by removing the option of masks for schools completely?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic campaigner for Workington and for liberty. He is absolutely right in what he says about masks in education. I am delighted they are going. We need to work together to ensure we have a way of living with covid that ensures they never, ever come back.

Neale Hanvey: Early in the pandemic, the Government banged their fist on the table and demanded that the UK diagnostic sector respond to the challenge ahead. The industry responded, and its reward was to be ignored and side-lined—because contracts there came none. Two weeks ago, the UK diagnostics industry looked on in disbelief as the Prime Minister bragged about Government support for the manufacturing of lateral flow devices. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care bragged about buying UK-manufactured lateral flow devices. I could ask the Prime Minister how many UK-manufactured lateral flow devices his Government have purchased, but I do not need to because the answer is, none. Why is the Prime Minister trying to hide his Government’s undermining of the UK domestic diagnostic sector?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. He should go to Nottingham, where he will find a SureScreen Diagnostics factory, which makes lateral flow kits, and we have bought millions and millions of them.

Philip Hollobone: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s lifting of the covid restrictions. At the present time, 70% of those in Kettering General Hospital with covid are unvaccinated and the vast majority of those could have had the vaccine but made the wrong choice in not doing so. May I urge the Prime Minister, when the daily hospitalisation cases are published, to emphasise the fact that the vast majority are unvaccinated, as an incentive to get more boosters done?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend. He is spot on. He is absolutely right in what he says. I have tried to draw repeated attention, in what I have been saying, to the sad fact that 90% of people in ICU have had no booster and 66% of people are unvaccinated. Omicron is not a mild disease for everyone and it can be particularly nasty if you are not vaccinated.

Grahame Morris: I acknowledge the enormous effort the NHS has made. The Prime Minister referred to the many thousands of people who have been treated. May I also point out the cost to 50,000 cancer patients of delayed diagnosis? His colleague sitting alongside him, the Health Secretary, said in this very Chamber that it is the Government’s intention to wage a “war on cancer”, a statement welcomed by the Catch Up With Cancer campaign. May I respectfully remind the Prime Minister that, unless that rhetoric is backed up by a plan, new resources to address the workforce crisis, and new IT networks and new equipment, it will just be seen as empty rhetoric?

Boris Johnson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely. Tackling the cancer backlog is a massive priority for the Government. It is not just a question of making sure people have access to the right drugs. The delays are very largely caused by delays in diagnostics by scans and screens. As he knows, that is one of the biggest problems we have. That is why, since October, we have rolled out 40 community diagnostics hubs. They will be part of a total of 100 going forward. We want to see much more rapid diagnosis to help to contract those periods that people are now spending on the waiting lists.

Andrew Murrison: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Prime Minister made the right call on restrictions before Christmas and he has made the right call today, except in one respect: the compulsory vaccination of NHS workers. Given that leaked advice to Ministers said that that is neither rational nor proportionate, and given what we now know about omicron and its behaviour, will he think again before redundancy letters start going out from 3 February?

Boris Johnson: That argument has been well made by colleagues across the House today. I remind my right hon. Friend that this policy is supported by the NHS for patient safety. It is a very difficult point when it comes to patients who have contracted fatal nosocomially acquired covid. People want their medical staff to be vaccinated. I repeat what I have said throughout the afternoon: I think it is the responsibility of all healthcare professionals to be vaccinated. I hope that he shares that view.

Janet Daby: Parents and carers are concerned about their child’s safety and protection from the virus. Ventilators are proven to work to reduce the spread of the virus, but the Government have provided a fraction of the ventilators needed in schools. Will the Prime Minister say when ventilators will be provided to all schools up and down our country?

Boris Johnson: From memory, we have provided 350,000 carbon dioxide detectors and I think we are supplying 7,000 ventilators. I realise that that does not cover every school in the country but, on the other hand, not every school in the country has a severe problem, and many schools are dealing with it, in my experience, with a great deal of practicality and common sense.

Stephen Metcalfe: I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Will he reassure my vulnerable constituents that the move and general Government approach to covid is based on the trends in data, and that despite some still very high case rates, the risk of serious disease faced by a double-vaxxed and boosted individual is very low and they should continue to live their lives to the full, along with the rest of us?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right. Covid has caused a great deal of apprehension across the country, particularly among vulnerable people, in my experience. It is important as we go forward and recover our freedoms that they, in particular, regain the confidence to live their lives to the full, as we would all want.

Hilary Benn: Following the discussions between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Information Commissioner, is the Prime Minister satisfied that NHS employers will have access to all the information that they require to ensure that all their staff have indeed been vaccinated?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. The data I have is that we are up to 94.7% of NHS staff who have been vaccinated. That is a great improvement, but we have to make sure  that we cull all the data as fast as possible and work with all the NHS trusts to do that. One of the big things that we have learned in this pandemic is that data needs to be much more accessible—faster—to the Department of Health and Social Care.

Alberto Costa: Had we listened to the Opposition prior to Christmas, the restrictions that they were asking for would have had a catastrophic effect. Thank goodness we have this Prime Minister, who has done the right thing. May I ask him about the Feilding Palmer Hospital in Lutterworth? Will he help me to arrange an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to discuss the important future of that hospital, which is being used as a covid vaccination centre?

Boris Johnson: You bet.

Ronnie Cowan: When the Prime Minister read out the line, “The Government will no longer mandate the wearing of face masks,” a number of his Back Benchers took off their masks and waved them around their heads. Will he acknowledge, without a hint of irony, that we have a deadly virus still at work in our communities, and that it falls upon us all to behave in a manner that encourages people to act responsibly within their own communities?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much and direct him to exactly what I said earlier, which I am sure he listened to.

Derek Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, which is very welcome. I thank him also for the investment and care taken with vaccine-hesitant groups. Sadly, such groups exist within the NHS, and he is right to stress the need for healthcare workers to get the vaccine. However, may I ask him to consider carefully the consequences for our NHS in our constituencies if we cannot convince the remaining 5% of NHS staff who are yet to have the vaccine?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I want to reassure the House that this is a complex and difficult issue, but it is important that we give NHS staff the strongest possible encouragement to get vaccinated. That requires a lot of work and a lot of effort, but the risks of not being vaccinated are very real.

Florence Eshalomi: I pay tribute to the fantastic NHS staff up and down Vauxhall and the many volunteers helping with the roll-out of the booster jab. I speak regularly to staff at St Thomas’ Hospital in my constituency—a hospital the Prime Minister knows very well, as it was the hard-working staff there who cared for him when he was sick with this deadly virus in 2020. Those staff tell me that they are tired and that they are mentally stressed. Those staff are burnt out. What is the Prime Minister going to do to redress, first, the staffing shortages across our NHS, and secondly, the sheer mental health stress that staff are facing, day in, day out?

Boris Johnson: I echo what the hon. Lady said about the staff at St Thomas’ Hospital, to whom I owe a massive personal debt. They are indeed wonderful  people. I know they are tired now, but they have kept going. London hospitals went through a pretty nasty wave of omicron and they got through it brilliantly. We have to make sure that we support them with more investment but also with more staff. I find when talking to them that that is what really helps—another pair of hands in the night to help on the ward can make a huge difference. That is why it is important that there are 44,000 more NHS staff this year than there were in 2020, but we need to do more, which is why I think the £36 billion more that we are putting in over three years is hugely necessary. I do not want to make a political point again, but I wish those on the hon. Lady’s side of the House had voted for it.

Andrew Jones: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. He is right to highlight the sacrifices made by the British people and the success of the early vaccination and booster programmes. This news will be especially welcome for people who are desperate to see loved ones in care homes, but there is a risk that those listening to his statement might think that the job is done. Will he continue to ensure that the NHS focuses on making sure that as many people as possible are vaccinated as quickly as possible, particularly among harder-to-reach groups?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is very wise and completely right. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members across the House totally get that this is not the moment when we roll out the bunting and say, “It’s all over.” We are not saying that, because we have to be cautious. We have to continue to recognise that the virus is not mild for everyone, and, as he rightly said, for people who are not vaccinated the consequences can be severe, so for heaven’s sake, get boosted.

James Murray: The Prime Minister spoke about the importance of the vaccination programme, but the first dose, second dose and booster jab rates in my constituency are significantly behind the national average. Will he explain in detail what he is going to do to drive up vaccination rates in my constituency and elsewhere?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We need to drive up booster take-up, but a lot of people have not even had a first and second dose. Our launch of the booster drive had a beneficial effect on first and second dose take-up as well—I think there were 2 million more in December alone.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today, which I am sure will welcomed by people across Cornwall. I would like to put on record my sincere thanks to the NHS and social care staff across Cornwall, who have cared not only for the people of Cornwall, but for members of my family throughout this pandemic.
Last night, Cornwall Council announced that we were in a critical incident for adult social care. As we know, this is multifaceted, but one of the reasons Cornwall hospitals have struggled in this pandemic is that the  brilliant infection control they have had to put in place in hospitals has lowered the capacity of beds. With this announcement, can my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State work at pace to give hospitals the reassurance that that can soon be lifted?

Boris Johnson: Yes. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we gave another £300 million of funding this December.

Rachael Maskell: Now is not the time for complacency—1,000 people have died over the past week; 438 just yesterday. I am also concerned at complacency about putting everything into the vaccine. I really do encourage everyone to get vaccinated, but according to the Government’s own figures, the depletion rate of the efficacy of the booster vaccine is between 40% and 50% after 10 weeks. So what happens then? What are the next steps, and is it really worth sacking NHS staff for that?

Boris Johnson: I totally support what the hon. Lady says about combating apathy. I do think that apathy is our foe now, particularly among people who think that the variant is so mild that they do not need to get vaccinated. As the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) was saying, people need to get their first dose and their second dose, and they need to get their booster.

Jason McCartney: I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today, having backed his very cautious, calm and proportionate plan B measures. I would like to congratulate everybody involved in the superb vaccination roll-out. Last week, I had a telephone call with a constituent who is an ambassador for Blood Cancer UK, and he told me about the challenges still facing those who are immunosuppressed. Will the Prime Minister please ask the Health Secretary if he could update the guidance and support for those with blood cancer and other conditions, so that they can emerge from the omicron wave and covid, and live with it safely and cautiously?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right to draw attention to those who are living with conditions that make them particularly vulnerable. That is why it is so important that, among all the other things the Government have done, we have invested more in antivirals per head than any other country in Europe.

Deidre Brock: Reports are circulating that the Government plan to lift all restrictions by early March because No. 10 thinks that we must all just learn to live with the virus. However, 438 people across the UK yesterday failed to live with the virus. How does this Prime Minister persuade their loved ones that the wholesale lifting of restrictions is not premature and misguided?

Boris Johnson: I must just repeat that that is not what I said in my statement, but I do think this is the right, balanced and proportionate approach. I notice that measures are also being lifted in Scotland, and I think that that is appropriate.

Mike Wood: Many people were sceptical about whether the sunset clauses would ever be triggered, so I congratulate the Prime Minister on responding to the clear evidence by bringing plan B to an end. However, as covid will be with us for a long time to come, will he ensure that regional Nightingale hospitals maintain the surge capacity necessary to deal with any future variants, so that they do not put unsustainable pressures on our NHS and we do not have the kind of restrictions that we have seen over the past two years?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is completely right. We need to learn the lessons of the last two years. We need to make sure that if we are, heaven forbid, attacked by another variant—a more lethal variant than omicron—we have different ways of dealing with it, and we have resilience built in to the NHS and into the way we handle it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be setting out our plans for how to live with covid, irrespective of what kind of variants we encounter.

Daisy Cooper: I was very concerned earlier to hear the Prime Minister repeat an incorrect claim. He said that the UK was able to approve the vaccines only because we had left the European Medicines Agency. That claim has been roundly and repeatedly debunked, including by Full Fact in December 2020. Was he aware that that claim is incorrect, or is it just that in the last year, nobody has told him?

Boris Johnson: It is not incorrect. We were the first country in the world to license a vaccine.

Daisy Cooper: indicated dissent.

Boris Johnson: That is a fact. Is the hon. Lady going to deny it? It is true.

Danny Kruger: I make an appeal to the Front Benches on both sides of the House. We voted for the compulsory vaccination of NHS staff on the basis of the argument that it significantly reduces transmission, but it now appears that the evidence is changing. I note the careful words that the Prime Minister used to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) when he said that he would reflect on the policy. I hope that both Front Benches will reflect on it and consider the advice of the Royal College of Nursing that we should at least delay the implementation of the policy until the evidence is clearer.

Boris Johnson: I repeat my careful words to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I also repeat what I think is common ground, that it is the responsibility of every healthcare professional to get vaccinated.

Jim Shannon: I, too, thank the Prime Minister for his statement. As we all know, it is thanks to the sterling and courageous efforts of our NHS staff and many dedicated volunteers that the Government could deliver some 36 million booster vaccines across the whole of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As restrictions ease, what additional moneys will be  provided to the Northern Ireland Executive by way of covid recovery funding for businesses that have suffered due to the ongoing restrictions?

Boris Johnson: I am proud of all the work that we have done together with the authorities in Northern Ireland to ensure that we look after business, such as the furlough scheme and all the loans that we have made available, and to ensure that we continue to support the Northern Ireland economy as we come through the pandemic and beyond.

Scott Benton: Last summer, the Government’s decision to remove all covid restrictions and reopen society was proved correct. The decision to resist all calls for further restrictions before Christmas, as craved by the Opposition, has again been proved correct. Does the Prime Minister agree that, while Opposition Members dither, delay and opine in hindsight, on covid, the Government get the big calls right?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent summary of what I was trying to say in response to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). It would have been a great thing—a fine thing—throughout the pandemic to have had useful advice and co-operation from the Opposition. We did not get it, but I think we have taken the right decisions on the whole and we have got the big calls right.

Dave Doogan: I take this opportunity to thank staff at NHS Tayside and the Angus Health and Social Care Partnership for their tremendous work. If we look at the covid heat map across the United Kingdom as of 18 January, almost all of England is in the top two of four categories for infections per 100,000, whereas all of Wales and Scotland are in the bottom two. Why is now the time to reduce control measures in England? Is it on the basis of public health advice or is the Prime Minister having to kowtow to the febrile ambitions of his Back Benchers on whom his future now depends?

Boris Johnson: Really, that is a complete travesty. If we look at the numbers, as I think even the Opposition Front-Bench team have accepted, we can see that they are going down in all age groups across the country. What is interesting is that hospitalisations have not only stabilised but started to come down, which has always been the most important thing for me. That is why this is a sensible and proportionate step to take, but I have to remind him and everybody that it is still important to be cautious, and I am sure he will be.

Ian Lavery: Before the Prime Minister becomes overly euphoric about covid, he might do well to remember that 150,000-plus people have died in this country as a result of covid, with 438 people having died yesterday. On 9 December, when he introduced plan B, the rate of cases per 100,000 in my constituency was 412.6, whereas today, when he has withdrawn the restrictions, the rate is 1,517.5—it is astronomical. What reassurance can he give my constituents that his withdrawals are safe and they have not been made in the best interests of the political issues that face him at the moment?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is asking an excellent question. The difference between the situation when plan B came in and today is the sheer level of vaccination in this country, including in his constituency. That, combined with the direction of travel of the figures, as I said to the hon. Member for Ilford North, is what gives us the confidence to take the steps we are taking now.

Carol Monaghan: It is disappointing that the Prime Minister’s statement did not include measures to recover the £4.3 billion fraudulently claimed through coronavirus support schemes. With the £20 a week cut to universal credit, inflation at over 5% and energy prices going through roof, ordinary families are not experiencing coronavirus recovery in the same boozy way as the Prime Minister, so will he now commit to supporting those families to the tune of £4.3 billion, in the same way as criminals have been supported?

Boris Johnson: We continue to support people throughout the pandemic, and we can be very proud of the speed with which we not only did the vaccine roll-out, but secured 17 billion items of personal protective equipment for the use of people across this country.

Kirsten Oswald: It is good to see some positive signs on covid, but throughout the pandemic it has been clear that we need to remain cautious and accept that covid may well have some surprises up its sleeve for us, and that is not really the approach set out in this conveniently timed statement today. The Prime Minister’s changeable and increasingly distant relationship with the rules that he himself set undermines public health messaging and future compliance. Does he really not recognise how damaging that is?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is right in what she says about the risks we still run. I think they are diminishing but we still need to be cautious. She is also right to say that even if this is the final reel, there can be a twist in the final reel and we will have to deal with it then. The Government have been able, to quite an amazing extent, working with healthcare professionals up and down the country, to deliver—

Kirsten Oswald: That is not what I asked.

Boris Johnson: It is directly on her point. We have been able to deliver a vaccine roll-out that has commanded the confidence of the British people in a way that I have never seen—I have never seen anything like it, and there are countries around the world that have never seen anything like it. As I said, it was done not by compulsion. We have got the numbers up to their stratospheric levels—more than 90% of people over 60 have done this. Huge, huge numbers of people are still coming forward to be vaccinated entirely voluntarily, because, despite all the noise, hubbub and politicking, they are listening to the messages and understanding them, and I owe them my deepest thanks.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the Prime Minister. I will pause to allow Members to leave the Chamber, and I hope that they will do so quietly and quickly.

Personal Statement

Daniel Kawczynski: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a personal statement to the House.
Last week, the Committee on Standards published a report on my conduct following a complaint from Sir Stephen Irwin, the chair of the independent expert panel, that I had not abided by a determination of the IEP that I apologise unequivocally to the House for my behaviour in bullying members of House of Commons staff. I sincerely apologise for my conduct, which led to this investigation. I acknowledge that in speaking to journalists and the radio, I undermined the sincerity of the apology that I gave the House on 14 June 2021. I am sorry that my conduct will have had a further harmful effect on the complainants, and that it may have diminished public confidence in the process. I will be sending a written apology to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the chair of the independent expert panel, and the original complainants.
I am conscious that my conduct may have merited suspension from the service of the House for a longer period, and appreciate the Committee’s consideration of the difficulties that I was experiencing in my personal life at the time and the mental health issues that I explained to it. I accept that speaking out in the way I did to the media had a detrimental effect on the House’s conduct policy by undermining the integrity of the complaints process, and I deeply regret my actions. I am committed to learning from the mistakes I have made, and to working on my personal development, especially in my communication with others in every interaction that I have. I hope that others will learn from my experience, and I should be happy to share what I have learnt with others.
The House has rightly worked hard to change its culture so that everyone who comes on to the estate, or has any dealings with Parliament, feels safe from bullying or harassment. I want to do everything I can to assist in that, and I regret that my actions fell short.

Points of Order

Zarah Sultana: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have informed the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) that I will be referring to him.
In July 2020, the hon. Member for Calder Valley told LBC that
“sections of the community…are not taking the pandemic seriously”.
When asked if he was talking about Muslims, he said, “Of course.” When challenged, he refused to apologise.
We now know that just a few weeks earlier the Prime Minister had attended a boozy party in Downing Street and No. 10 staffers had been wheeling suitcases of drink to work, but I note that the hon. Member for Calder Valley has not condemned that behaviour as
“not taking the pandemic seriously”.
This weekend a member of the public wrote to the hon. Member, copying me into the email and raising her concerns about his comments. He replied, not apologising for his divisive remarks but insulting me instead.
Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can bring the hon. Member for Calder Valley to the Chamber to apologise, not just for insulting me but, more important, for his offensive slur against British Muslims?

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for giving me notice that she intended to make it.
It will, of course, be obvious that the Chair is not, and cannot possibly be, responsible for the content of Members’ correspondence with members of the public, but I understand why the hon. Lady is upset by that exchange. Let me simply say that all Members should bear in mind these words in “Erskine May”:
“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”
Of course, when one is acting in the capacity of a Member of Parliament, parliamentary language extends beyond this Chamber and this House to correspondence and other matters as well. I will simply recommend that all Members adopt a tone of “good temper and moderation”.
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady advice on how to bring the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) to the Chamber, as he is not responsible to the Chair or to the Chamber but, of course, to his own constituents.

Munira Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice and guidance on how I can secure some substantive answers from the Department for Education on three very important written questions that I tabled following the Secretary of State’s recent announcement on air purifiers, regarding the data and criteria that were used in deciding how and where they should be distributed. Unfortunately, all my  questions were grouped together and given one broad, evasive answer that provided no clarity and did not address the questions, and nor did it suggest that the data was either unavailable or too costly to provide. You will be aware that experts have been recommending these air purifiers for many months, and parents and school staff are anxious about reducing covid transmission and covid absences in schools, so I look forward to your guidance on how I can go about securing some substantive answers from the Department for Education.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for her point of order. I say yet again, as Mr Speaker has said on many occasions, that responses to questions are of course a matter for the Government, not the Chair. However, Mr Speaker has very often made it clear to those on the Treasury Bench that when Members ask perfectly reasonable questions on behalf of their constituents, answers should be given in a proper and timely manner. If she wishes to pursue the matter, the Clerks in the Table Office will certainly be able to offer her advice on how she might require the relevant Minister to come to the House to answer her questions. She has also put on the record her view of the Government’s answer, and she might wish to write to the Procedure Committee, which monitors the Government’s performance in responding to questions. I am aware of a number of similar points of order that have been raised in the Chamber, as I am sure are Ministers, so I have every confidence that her points will be listened to.

Bills Presented

Registration of Overseas Entities

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran, supported by Mr Ben Bradshaw, Chris Bryant, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Ed Davey, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Stephen Farry, Dame Margaret Hodge, Kevin Hollinrake, Caroline Lucas, Alyn Smith and Jamie Stone, presented a Bill to set up a register of overseas entities and their beneficial owners and require overseas entities who own land to register in certain circumstances.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 232).

Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Owen Thompson, supported by Marion Fellows, Alison Thewliss, Patricia Gibson, Peter Grant, Gavin Newlands, Martyn Day, Steven Bonnar, Brendan O’Hara, Stuart C. McDonald, Ms Anum Qaisar and Chris Stephens, presented a Bill to require a Minister to make an oral statement to Parliament if a contract is awarded under emergency statutory powers to a person in whom, or a company in which, a Minister has a personal, political or financial interest.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 January, and to be printed (Bill 230).

Prisons (Violence)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Grahame Morris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a duty on Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and private prison operators to minimise violence in prisons; and for connected purposes.
I will endeavour to follow your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, about good temper and moderation.
I would first like to express my gratitude to all staff working in prisons. It is an incredibly challenging job, and even more so with covid and the many challenges they face with the latest omicron wave. Over 90% of prisons are currently outbreak sites, and I am told by the Prison Officers Association trade union that this is up from just three establishments a month ago. That has caused critical staffing shortages, as well as all the dangers to public health that follow.
On top of this recent threat to the health of staff and prisoners, there is the ever-present threat to their safety from prison violence. The sky-high level of violence plaguing our prisons makes rehabilitation inside practically impossible, meaning that offenders often leave prison more damaged and dangerous than when they arrived. That leads to more reoffending, costing tens of billions of pounds a year and causing misery for millions of victims and their loved ones who have to live with the consequences of even more crime. The prison lockdowns throughout the pandemic have thankfully reduced assaults from the all-time highs that we saw in 2019, but Ministers must now learn the right lessons and not rely on long lock-ups in future or revert back to a business-as-usual approach.
The new “Prisons Strategy” White Paper is a golden opportunity for urgently needed change if Ministers will only commit to doing whatever it takes to tackle both prison violence and, indeed, the causes of prison violence. My Bill aligns with the White Paper’s stated aim of reducing prison violence and uses the paper’s framework of key performance indicators—“management targets” in common parlance—to achieve this. KPIs are already used in private prisons to reward or penalise their operators, but the Government’s new strategy extends these targets and adds new ones to public sector prisons too. It is obvious that the new KPIs need to include safety for both prisoners and staff but, curiously, this commitment is entirely missing from the White Paper. My Bill seeks to correct that omission. It would enshrine a statutory duty on prison management—whether in the public or private sector—to minimise violence. If KPIs are the Minister’s preferred method of choice, that is the method we will use here too.
Currently, the only prison safety targets involve serious assaults, and such assaults must involve hospital treatment. This needs to be extended to all kinds of violence, if Ministers are serious about a zero-tolerance approach to bad behaviour. Penalties could include fines for both public and private sector operators, with the money raised going towards making injury compensation schemes fit for purpose by widening the scope for claims, removing the unfair barriers throughout the process, and lifting awards to reflect the bravery and commitment shown by prison officers and other staff working in our prisons system.
Even Ministers accept that staff cuts of more than 25%—in the name of austerity— have triggered the crisis. This is evidenced by the recent rush to recruit more prison officers, but resignation rates have gone through the roof, with more officers now leaving the service each week than joining. The White Paper actually calls for an extra 5,000 prison officers to run the new generation of private prisons, but how will the Minister do that in the light of the last failed recruitment drive?
The second part of my Bill would enshrine in law a range of initiatives designed to protect staff and prisoners from violence and to encourage staff, especially prison officers, to stay in the job. The most wide-ranging of these is the “Safe inside prisons” charter. This set of reasonable and straightforward principles for safe systems of work is endorsed by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, a coalition of nine prison unions: the Prison Officers Association; the University and College Union, which represents prison educators; the Royal College of Nursing; the British Medical Association; the National Association of Prison Officers; the Public and Commercial Services Union; Unison; the GMB; and Unite the Union. I am more than happy to declare that I am chair of the Unite the Union parliamentary group. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. Those unions have long called for the Ministry of Justice to adopt the charter and mandate other prison employers to do the same. Unfortunately, it seems that Ministers will not consider this until every recognised union signs up. That seems to me to be a rather flimsy excuse for inaction. Instead, let us make it the law—we might call it the “safer inside” law.
Some other vital steps that we could take in order to hold on to staff may be beyond the scope of my Bill, but I will outline them anyway. First, the Government could accept all the pay review body recommendations, including the £3,000 pay rise for entry-level prison officers, and make sure that future advice is legally binding on Ministers. Secondly, we could cancel all plans for new private prisons until we get to grips with why they are up to 50% more violent than publicly run prisons. Thirdly, we could bring the prison officer pension age back down to 60, because 68 is simply too late. There are many other ways to make prison staff feel rewarded and not exploited, but I am afraid I do not have the time to go into that today.
Above all, my aim with this Bill is to focus minds on the terrible conditions that face both staff and prisoners in our prisons, and to start a national conversation about how we may solve this crisis. It is time to replace warm words with action. If Minister will not act, we must work together across party lines—I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have indicated their support for my Bill—to pass the “safe inside” law ourselves. I therefore humbly request that my Bill be given due consideration and passed into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Grahame Morris, Gordon Henderson, Wendy Chamberlain, Liz Saville Roberts, Chris Stephens, Kenny MacAskill, Jim Shannon, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, Paula Barker, Mary Kelly Foy and Ian Lavery present the Bill.
Grahame Morris accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 February, and to be printed (Bill 233).

Charities Bill [Lords]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 90(5)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Building Safety Bill (Programme)  (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 21 July 2021 (Building Safety Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in one day in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

  

  Proceedings
  Time for conclusion of proceedings


  New Clauses, new Schedules and amendments relating to Part 5
  4.00pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced


  Remaining proceedings on Consideration
  6.00pm on that day

  

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced. —(Scott Mann.)

Building Safety Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Cladding remediation—Follow-up, HC 1249; Fifth Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, HC 466, and the Government Response, CP 473; Second Report of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, Session 2019-21, Cladding: progress of remediation, HC 172, and the Government Response, CP 281; Letter from the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Communities regarding the Government’s response to the Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill, dated 19 July 2021, and the Minister’s response, dated 31 August 2021.]

New Clause 20 - Regulations under section 131

“(1) The power to make regulations under section 131(6)(b) is exercisable by statutory instrument, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.
(For regulations under section 131(6)(b) made by the Scottish Ministers, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).
(2) Regulations under section 131(6)(b)—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may contain consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.
(3) Regulations under section 131(6)(b)—
(a) if made by the Secretary of State, may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament;
(b) if made by the Welsh Ministers, may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru;
(c) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This new clause provides for the parliamentary procedure and other matters connected to the power to make regulations under section 131(6)(b) and is needed as a consequence of conferring powers on the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers (see Amendments 54 and 55).
Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Pincher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 21—Amendment of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Government new clause 22—Architects: Appeals Committee.
New clause 3—Remediation costs and Building Works Agency—
“(1) The remediation costs condition applies where a landlord has carried out any fire safety works to an applicable building in consequence of any provision, duty or guidance arising from—
(a) the Housing Act 2004;
(b) the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005;
(c) the Building Safety Act 2021;
(d) any direction, recommendation or suggestion of any public authority or regulatory body;
(e) such other circumstances or enactment as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations or in accordance with subsection (9), below.
(2) If the remediation costs condition is met, then the costs incurred by the landlord in connection with those matters may not be the subject of a demand for payment of service charges, administration charges or any other charge permitted or authorised by any provision of any long lease.
(3) Any demand for payment which contravenes this section shall be of no force or effect and will have no validity in law.
(4) Any covenant or agreement, whether contained in a lease or in an agreement collateral to such a lease, is void in so far as it purports to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the tenant any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the tenant refusing, failing or declining to make a payment to which this section applies.
(5) The remediation costs condition applies to demands for payment before the landlord incurs the costs in the same way as it applies to demands for payment made after the costs have been incurred.
(6) The remediation costs condition does not apply where the landlord is a company in which the majority of the shares are held by leaseholders or where the landlord is an RTM company.
(7) Within six months of the day on which this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must create an agency referred to as the Building Works Agency.
(8) The purpose of the Building Works Agency shall be to administer a programme of cladding remediation and other building safety works, including—
(a) overseeing an audit of cladding, insulation and other building safety issues in buildings over two storeys;
(b) prioritising audited buildings for remediation based on risk;
(c) determining the granting or refusal of grant funding for cladding remediation work;
(d) monitoring progress of remediation work and enforce remediation work where appropriate;
(e) determining buildings to be safe once remediation work has been completed;
(f) seeking to recover costs of remediation where appropriate from responsible parties; and
(g) providing support, information and advice for owners of buildings during the remediation process.
(9) The Building Works Agency shall also have power to recommend that the Secretary of State exercises his power under clause (1)(e) in such terms and to such extent that it sees fit. If such a recommendation is made, the Secretary of State must, within 28 days, either—
(a) accept it and exercise the power under clause 1(e) within 28 days of acceptance; or
(b) reject it and, within 28 days of rejection, lay before Parliament a report setting out the reasons for rejection.
(10) In this section—
(a) ‘fire safety works’ means any work or service carried out for the purpose of eradicating or mitigating (whether permanently or temporarily) any risk associated with the spread of fire, the structural integrity of the building or the ability of people to evacuate the building;
(b) ‘applicable building’ means a building subject to one or more long leases on the day on which section comes into force;
(c) ‘service charge’ has the meaning given by s.18, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;
(d) ‘administration charge’ has the meaning given by Schedule 11, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
(e) ‘long lease’ has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
(f) ‘RTM company’ has the meaning given by section 113 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
(11) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 4—Building Safety remediation and works: zero-rating for Value Added Tax purposes—
“(1) The Value Added Tax Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 35(1A)(b) at the end leave out ‘and’.
(3) In subsection 35(1A)(c) leave out the final full stop and insert ‘, and’.
(4) After subsection 35(1A)(c) insert—
‘(d) building safety remediation or building safety works of the type described in item 4A of the table in paragraph 1 of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to this Act.’
(5) After subsection 35(2) insert—
‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Commissioners shall make regulations providing for a period of not less than 6 months to be open for claims for repayment of VAT in relation to supplies under subsection 35(1A)(d) where the date of supply is between 14 June 2017 and 31 July 2022.’
(6) In the table at paragraph 1 of Group 5 of Schedule 8, after existing item 4 insert new item 4A—
‘The supply in the course of—
(a) remediation of any defect in any external wall of any building containing two or more residential dwellings; or
(b) remediation of any defect in any attachment to any external wall of any building containing two or more residential dwellings; or
(c) the installation of a new or upgraded communal fire alarm system, other than to replace a communal system which has reached the end of its working life, or a communal system which has broken down as a result of failure to make reasonable repairs over time; or
(d) remediation of any internal or external defect other than a defect described in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) any building safety works carried out by an accountable person under section 86 of the Building Safety Act 2021
of any services related to the remediation.’
(7) In the table at paragraph 1 of Group 5 of Schedule 8, in item 4 replace ‘item 2 or 3’ with ‘item 2, 3 or 4A’.
(8) After note 24 insert a new note as follows—
‘(25) For the purposes of item 4A in the table above—
“defect” means anything posing any risk to the spread of fire, the structural integrity of the building or the ability of people to evacuate the building, including but not limited to any risk identified in guidance issued under Article 50 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541) or any risk identified in regulations made under section 59 of the Building Safety Act 2021;
“external wall” has the same meaning as in Article 6 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541);
“remediation” means any step taken to eradicate or to mitigate a defect, including employment of any person temporarily or permanently to assist in  evacuation of any part of a building, and whether or not the defect in question existed at the date any dwelling in the building was first occupied. Remediation does not include anything required in consequence of omitting to effect reasonable repairs or maintenance to all or any part of the building over time, or anything which is the responsibility of the occupant of a dwelling in the building.’
(9) This section comes into force on 1 August 2022.”
This new clause allows recovery of VAT on building safety remedial works paid since 14 June 2017 and makes future supplies of materials, goods and services for building safety remediation projects zero-rated for Value Added Tax.
New clause 5—Fire safety defects and defective dwellings—
“(1) The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 528(1)(a) leave out the final ‘, and’ and insert ‘, or’.
(3) After section 528(1)(a) insert—
‘(aa) buildings in the proposed class are defective as a result of their external walls or any attachment to the external walls, whether as a result of the design or construction of the external walls or the attachment in question; or
(ab) buildings in the proposed class are defective as a result of anything which in the opinion of the Secretary of State poses a building safety risk or the ability of anyone to evacuate the building, whether or not the building is a higher-risk building, and’
(4) In section 528(1)(b) for ‘paragraph (a)’ substitute ‘paragraphs (a), (aa) or (ab)’.
(5) In section 528(1)(b) at the end insert ‘, or in the opinion of the Secretary of State is materially difficult to mortgage, insure or sell compared to non-defective dwellings.’
(6) After section 528(4) insert—
‘(4A) A designation may identify any part of a building or class of buildings, any design feature, any material used in the construction of that building, any error in workmanship or installation or anything missing from that building, whether or not it should have been included when the building was constructed.
(4B) A designation may be made if the defect requires the employment of any person, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, specifically to assist with the evacuation of that building or part of that building.’
(7) After section 528(6) insert—
‘(7) In this section—
“building safety risk” has the same meaning as in section 59 of the Building Safety Act 2021.
“external wall” has the same meaning as in Article 6 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541).
“higher-risk building” has the same meaning as in section 62 of the Building Safety Act 2021.’
(8) In section 559(1)(a) omit the final ‘, and’ and replace it with ‘, or’.
(9) After section 559(1)(a) insert—
‘(aa) buildings in the proposed class are defective as a result of their external walls or any attachment to the external walls, whether as a result of the design or construction of the external walls or the attachment in question; or
(ab) buildings in the proposed class are defective as a result of anything which in the opinion of the local housing authority poses a building safety risk or the ability of anyone to evacuate the building, whether or not the building is a higher-risk building, and’
(10) In section 559(1)(b) for ‘paragraph (a)’ substitute ‘paragraphs (a), (aa) or (ab)’.
(11) In section 559(1)(b) at end insert—
‘or in the opinion of the local housing authority materially difficult to mortgage, insure or sell compared to non-defective dwellings.’
(12) After section 559(4) insert—
‘(4A) A designation may identify any part of a building or class of buildings, any design feature, any material used in the construction of that building, any error in workmanship or installation or anything missing from that building, whether or not it should have been included when the building was constructed.
(4B) A designation may be made if the defect requires the employment of any person, whether on a permanent or temporary basis, specifically to assist with the evacuation of that building or part of that building.’
(13) After section 559(6) insert—
‘(7) In this section—
“building safety risk” has the same meaning as in section 59 of the Building Safety Act 2021;
“external wall” has the same meaning as in Article 6 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541);
“higher-risk building” has the same meaning as in section 62 of the Building Safety Act 2021.’
(14) This section comes into force on the day this Act is passed.”
This new clause is suggested before clause 126. This new clause amends Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 (originally enacted as the Housing Defects Act 1984) to empower the government and local authorities to designate dwellings with cladding and fire safety defects as defective and to provide grant support for remediation.
New clause 6—Duty on the Secretary of State to report on designations under Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985—
“(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consider the financial impact on leaseholders in England and Wales of building safety advice given by his department since 14 June 2017; and
(b) in conjunction with the Treasury and the Prudential Regulation Authority, consider the impact of building safety advice given by his department since 14 June 2017 on the supply of mortgage finance for leasehold flats in England and Wales; and
(c) publish a report setting out his determination, in light of the factors identified in paragraphs (a) and (b), as to whether designations under section 528 or section 559 of the Housing Act 1985 would improve conditions for leaseholders, or would improve the supply of mortgage finance for leasehold flats in England and Wales.
(2) If the Secretary of State’s report under subsection (1) concludes that designations under section 528 or section 559 of the Housing Act 1985 would improve financial conditions for leaseholders in England and Wales, or would improve the supply of mortgage finance for leasehold flats in England and Wales, then at the same time as publishing his report he must—
(a) make arrangements to provide all necessary funding;
(b) make the appropriate designations under section 528 of the Housing Act 1985; and
(c) advise local housing authorities to make appropriate designations under section 559 of the Housing Act 1985.
(3) Before making any regulations bringing into force any section in Part 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for—
(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved the report prepared under subsection (1), to be moved in the House of Commons by a minister of the Crown; and
(b) a motion to the effect that the House of Lords to take note of the report prepared under subsection (1), to be moved in the House of Lords by a minister of the Crown.
(4) The motions required under subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) must be moved in the relevant House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the report under subsection (1) is published.
(5) If the motion tabled in the House of Commons is rejected or amended, the Secretary of State must, within 30 calendar days, publish a further report under subsection (1) and make arrangements for further approval equivalent to those under subsection (2).
(6) The Secretary of State shall make a further report under subsection (1) at least every 90 calendar days beginning with the day of any rejection or amendment by the House of Commons under subsection (5) until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(7) In this section—
‘leaseholder’ means the registered legal owner of a long lease; and
‘leasehold flat’ means a flat owned by a leaseholder; and
‘long lease’ has the same meaning as in section 76 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
(8) This section comes into force on the day this Act is passed.”
This new clause is suggested before clause 126. It places a time-limited duty on the Secretary of State to consider making designations under Part XVI of the Housing Act 1985 to provide funding for cladding and fire safety remediation and for Parliament to approve the plans for doing so.
New clause 7—Building Safety Indemnity Scheme—
“(1) There shall be a body called the ‘Building Safety Indemnity Scheme’ (referred to in this Act as ‘the Scheme’).
(2) The purpose of the Scheme shall be to collect money from levies and to disburse the money raised from those levies in the form of grants to leaseholders to pay all or any part of the following types of costs—
(a) remediation of any defect in any external wall of any building containing two or more residential units; or
(b) remediation of any defect in any attachment to any external wall of any building containing two or more residential units; or
(c) remediation of any internal or external defect other than a defect described in paragraphs (a) or (b); or
(d) any building safety works carried out by an accountable person under section 86; or
(e) any other cost of a type specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under this section.
(3) The Scheme may disburse money for the benefit of leaseholders in any type of building, whether or not a higher-risk building and whether or not the building was first occupied before the coming into force of this Act.
(4) The levy imposed by the Scheme shall be determined by reference to each of the following—
(a) the Scheme’s best estimate of the reasonably likely total cost of grants to cover any type of cost described in subsection (2);
(b) the Scheme’s best estimate of the costs of raising and administering the levy; and
(c) the Scheme’s best estimate of the costs of processing applications for grants to leaseholders and disbursing funds to leaseholders from monies raised by the levy.
(5) Members of the Scheme subject to levies shall include the following—
(a) any person seeking building control approval;
(b) any prescribed insurer providing buildings insurance to buildings containing two or more residential units, whether or not the buildings are higher-risk buildings;
(c) any prescribed supplier of construction products subject to regulations made under Schedule 9 to this Act;
(d) any prescribed lender providing mortgage finance in the United Kingdom, whether or not secured over residential units in higher-risk buildings; and
(e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The Scheme is to consult with levy paying members before determining the amount and duration of any levy.
(7) The Scheme must provide a process by which leaseholders, or persons acting on behalf of leaseholders, can apply for grants for the types of costs specified in subsection (2).
(8) The Scheme must provide an appeals process for the Scheme’s decisions regarding—
(a) the determination of the amount of any levy; or
(b) the determination of any grant application.
(9) A building control authority may not give building control approval to anyone unless—
(a) the person seeking building control approval is a registered member of the Scheme, or that person becomes a registered member of the Scheme before the building control approval is given; and
(b) the person seeking building control approval pays all levies made on that person by the Scheme before the building control approval is given.
(10) The Secretary of State must provide that any regulations made under Schedule 9 to this Act provide, as a condition of approval of any regulated construction product, that any prescribed supplier of such a product—
(a) is a registered member of the Scheme, or that prescribed supplier becomes a registered member of the Scheme; and
(b) that the prescribed supplier pays all levies made on that person by the Scheme.
(11) Any liability to pay a levy under this section does not affect the liability of the same person to pay an additional levy under section 57 of this Act.
(12) Within a period of 12 months beginning with the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must make regulations providing for—
(a) the appointment of a board to oversee the Scheme;
(b) the staffing of the Scheme;
(c) the creation and maintenance of a public register of members of the Scheme;
(d) the preparation of the best estimates described in subsection (4);
(e) the amount, manner and timing of payment of the levies on members of the Scheme under this section;
(f) the process of joining the Scheme;
(g) the process of leaseholders applying to the Scheme for grants towards any of the types of costs specified in subsection (2);
(h) the process for handling any appeals against decisions of the Scheme on any levy or any grant;
(i) the Scheme to make an annual report to Parliament; and
(j) any other matters consequential to the Scheme’s operation.
(13) Regulations made under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(14) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(15) In this section—
‘building’ has the same meaning as in section 29;
‘building control approval’ has the same meaning as in paragraph (1B)(2) of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984;
‘building control authority’ has the same meaning as in section 121A of the Building Act 1984;
‘defect’ means anything posing any risk to the spread of fire, the structural integrity of the building or the ability of people to evacuate the building, including but not limited to any risk identified in guidance issued under Article 50 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541) or any risk identified in regulations made under section 59;
‘external wall’ has the same meaning as in Article 6 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541);
‘higher-risk building’ has the same meaning as in section 59;
‘prescribed’ means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
‘remediation’ means any step taken to eradicate or to mitigate a defect, including employment of any person to temporarily assist in evacuation of any part of a building, and whether or not the defect in question existed at the date any residential unit in the building was first occupied. Remediation does not include anything required in consequence of omitting to effect reasonable repairs or maintenance to all or any part of the building over time, or anything which is the responsibility of an occupant of a residential unit within the building;
‘residential unit’ has the same meaning as in section 29.
(16) This section shall come into force on the day this Act is passed.”
This new clause is suggested after clause 126, requiring the government to establish a comprehensive fund, equivalent to the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, to provide grants to remediate cladding and fire safety defects of all descriptions, paid for by levies on developers, building insurers and mortgage lenders.
New clause 8—Implied terms in residential building and residential renovation contracts—
“(1) Every residential building contract is to be taken to contain terms that—
(a) the residential unit is fit for the purpose of ordinary residential occupation and is likely to remain so for a reasonable period if kept in appropriate repair;
(b) the residential unit in question is constructed in all material respects as described or stated on the approved plans;
(c) the residential unit is not subject to any building safety risk;
(d) the materials incorporated in the residential unit are as described in any approved plans;
(e) the materials incorporated in the residential unit are of satisfactory quality;
(f) the design of the residential unit is of a reasonable standard;
(g) the design of the residential unit is prepared with reasonable care and skill;
(h) all works in connection with the construction of the residential unit are executed with reasonable care and skill; and
(i) the residential unit complies in all material respects with all applicable statutory requirements and with all applicable building regulations in force as at the date of completion.
(2) Every residential renovation contract is to be taken to contain terms that any renovation works—
(a) do not render the unit unfit for the purpose of ordinary residential occupation;
(b) do not create any building safety risk;
(c) do not involve the incorporation of materials in the residential unit which are not as described in any approved plans;
(d) do not involve the incorporation of materials in the residential unit which are not of satisfactory quality;
(e) are executed with reasonable care and skill; and
(f) do not render the residential unit materially non-compliant with any applicable statutory requirement or with any applicable requirement of building regulations in force as at the date of completion.
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), where the residential unit forms part of a building consisting of two or more residential units, the internal and external common parts of that building necessary for the reasonable occupation of any of the residential units are also to be taken to be subject to the same terms.
(4) A residential unit is fit for the ordinary purpose of residential occupation if it would be regarded as such by a reasonable person and taking into account—
(a) the ordinary costs of repair and maintenance of that residential unit by reference to that unit’s location and specific characteristics;
(b) any marketing materials provided before the sale of the residential unit in question; and
(c) whether that unit was marketed, designed or intended to be occupied by any particular class of persons, whether by age, by gender or by physical or mental disability.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a matter is material if it would be considered material if known or discovered by a reasonable purchaser of that residential unit before completing a purchase of that residential unit on ordinary commercial terms;
(b) a design is of a reasonable standard if a designer of average competence would have produced the same or a similar design;
(c) a material is of satisfactory quality if it would meet the requirements for satisfactory quality of goods under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; and
(d) a material is as described if it would meet the requirements for description of goods under section 11 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
(6) The terms taken to be included in any residential building contract or residential renovation contract are enforceable by any owner of the residential unit provided or renovated under the contract in question.
(7) A term of a residential building contract or a residential renovation contract is not binding on the owner of a residential unit provided or renovated pursuant to that contract if it would exclude or restrict any liability in relation to the terms implied by this section.
(8) The reference in subsection (7) to excluding or restricting a liability also includes preventing an obligation or duty arising or limiting its extent.
(9) An agreement in writing to submit present or future differences to arbitration is not to be regarded as excluding or restricting any liability for the purposes of this section.
(10) In this section—
‘approved plans’ means any document submitted as part of obtaining building control approval;
‘building control approval’ has the same meaning as in paragraph (1B) of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984;
‘building safety risk’ has the same meaning as in section 59, whether or not the residential unit is in a higher-risk building;
‘higher-risk building’ has the same meaning as in section 62;
‘owner’ means the registered legal owner of the residential unit from time to time, including any trustee holding a beneficial interest on behalf of a third party and any transferee or assignee of the original owner;
‘residential unit’ has the same meaning as in section 29;
‘residential building contract’ means a contract made in the course of business involving work on or in connection with the construction of a residential unit (whether the dwelling is provided by the erection or by the conversion or enlargement of an existing building);
‘residential renovation contract’ means a contract made in the course of business involving work on an existing residential unit, except where it is expected that, on completion of the work, it will have ceased to be a residential unit or will otherwise have ceased to exist.”
This new clause, proposed to be inserted after clause 128 strengthens consumer rights for future buyers by implying terms that houses and flats are built, and are renovated, to reasonable standards of quality and compliant in all material respects with the law and with building regulations.
New clause 9—Implied terms: limitation—
“(1) The Limitation Act 1980 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 5 insert—
‘5A Time limit for actions related to breach of implied terms in residential building contracts and residential renovation contracts
An action in respect of the breach of the term implied into a residential building contract or a residential renovation contract by section (Implied terms in residential building and residential renovation contracts) of the Building Safety Act 2021 may not be brought after the expiration of 25 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.’”
This new clause provides for a 25 year limitation period for breaches of the terms implied by the amendment proposed above.
New clause 10—Implied terms: mandatory insurance—
“(1) No member of the new homes ombudsman scheme created by this Act may offer for sale or sell any residential unit unless —
(a) every potential purchaser is provided on request with an accurate written summary of the terms of a prescribed policy applying to the residential unit when completed; and
(b) in accordance with any relevant regulation made under this section, or under section 131, or under section 132, the person offering for sale or the seller of the residential unit arranges a valid prescribed policy and provides a copy of a valid prescribed policy given to the purchaser of the residential unit on the day of the transfer to the purchaser of legal title in the residential unit.
(2) Any person in the course of business providing a residential unit under a residential building contract or renovations to a residential unit under a residential renovation contract must obtain a valid prescribed policy.
(3) No term of any residential building contract or residential renovation contract is enforceable unless a valid prescribed policy is in force in respect of such a contract.
(4) Within a period of six months beginning on the day this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must make regulations prescribing insurance terms for the purposes for this section, including—
(a) the creditworthiness of any insurer or warranty scheme under this section;
(b) the name of any warranty scheme which in the opinion of the Secretary of State achieves the purposes of this section;
(c) the minimum terms of any insurance or warranty under this section;
(d) that any policy or warranty scheme also provides reasonably adequate cover for any claim under sections 1 and 2A of the Defective Premises Act 1972 and section 38 of the Building Act 1984;
(e) a policy term or a warranty term of not less than the limitation period for making claims under any term implied into a residential building contract or residential renovation contract by this Act; and
(f) to bring into force section [Implied terms in residential building and residential renovation contracts] and section [Implied terms: limitation].
(5) Regulations made under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section—
‘new homes ombudsman scheme’ means the scheme established under section 129;
‘prescribed’ means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State, whether under this section, or under section 131, or under section 132;
‘residential building contract’ has the same meaning as in section [Implied terms in residential building and residential renovation contracts];
‘residential renovation contract’ has the same meaning as in section [Implied terms in residential building and residential renovation contracts]; and
‘residential unit’ has the same meaning as in section 29.
(8) This section shall come into force on the day this Act is passed.”
This new clause provides that members of the New Homes Ombudsman Scheme may not sell any new flat or house unless they provide insurance for 25-years to cover breach of implied terms as to quality.
New clause 11—Limitation Period for claims under section 38 of the Building Act 1984—
“(1) Section 38 of the Building Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 38(4) after ‘includes’ insert ‘economic loss,’.
(3) After section 38(4) insert—
‘(5) No right of action for damages for economic loss under this section shall accrue until any person to whom the duty is owed has actual knowledge of breach that duty.
(6) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (5) or any regulations made under this section, an action for damages for economic loss under this section shall not be brought after the expiration of twenty-five years from the date the breach of duty occurred.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), where there is more than one actionable breach of duty causing economic loss and the breaches in question occurred on different dates, then time runs only from the date of the last such breach.
(8) Any right of action under this section other than a right of action for damages for economic loss shall be subject to section 11 and section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.’
(4) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause proposed for the Building Act 1984 enables claims for recovery of monetary damages (economic loss) and provides that the time limit for claims start when a resident becomes aware of a breach, subject to a 25-year longstop date.
New clause 12—Abolition of the rule preventing recovery of economic loss in certain actions relating to damage or defects in buildings—
“(1) In any prescribed statutory action for damages, there is no bar to recovering economic loss.
(2) In any action for damages for negligence in relation to the construction or renovation of any residential unit, other than an action for damages to which section 11 or section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980 applies, there is no bar to recovering economic loss.
(3) This section shall apply to any right of action accruing on or after the day this section comes into force.
(4) For the purposes of this section —
‘prescribed statutory action for damages’ means any action for damages for breach of section 1 or section 2A of the Defective Premises Act 1972.
‘residential unit’ means any dwelling or other unit of residential accommodation, including any internal or external common parts of any building necessary for the occupation of that residential unit.
(5) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause abolishes the rule preventing the recovery of economic loss from developers and other professionals in claims for negligence and in claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
New clause 13—Leaseholder Costs Protection—
“(1) This section applies to a relevant building where a landlord has carried out any fire safety works to a building in consequence of any provision, duty or guidance arising from—
(a) the Housing Act 2004;
(b) the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005;
(c) this Act;
(d) any direction, recommendation or suggestion of any public authority or regulatory body; and
(e) such other circumstances or enactment as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations.
(2) If any of the conditions in subsection (1) are met, then the costs incurred by the landlord in connection with those matters may not be the subject of a demand for payment of service charges, administration charges or any other charge permitted or authorised by any provision of any long lease.
(3) Any demand for payment which contravenes this section shall be of no force or effect and will have no validity in law.
(4) Any covenant or agreement, whether contained in a lease or in an agreement collateral to such a lease, is void insofar as it purports to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the tenant any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the tenant refusing, failing or declining to make a payment to which this section applies.
(5) This section applies to demands for payment before the landlord incurs the costs in the same way as it applies to demands for payment made after the costs have been incurred.
(6) This section does not apply where the landlord is a company in which the majority of the shares are held by leaseholders or where the landlord is an RTM company.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a relevant building is any building containing one or more residential dwellings let on a long lease.
(8) In this section—
‘administration charge’ has the meaning given by Schedule 11 to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002; ‘fire safety works’ means any work or service carried out for the purpose of eradicating or mitigating (whether permanently or temporarily) any risk associated with the spread of fire, the structural integrity of the building or the ability of people to evacuate the building;
‘long lease’ has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
‘residential dwelling’ means any dwelling or other unit of residential accommodation, including any internal or external common parts of any building necessary for the occupation of that residential unit;
‘service charge’ has the meaning given by section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;
‘RTM company’ has the meaning given by section 113 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
(9) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause prevents the costs of any fire safety or building safety remedial works being passed on to leaseholders.
Amendment 2, in clause 126, page 133, line 17, at end insert—
“(d) In respect of remediation works completed before the coming into force of this section, apply for any refund of VAT due under section 35(1A)(d) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and credit the whole amount of any such refund received to leaseholders pro-rata in accordance with the terms of the lease.”
This amendment is consequential on NC4. Where works have already been carried out, this new subclause requires the landlord to obtain any retrospective VAT refund and to credit the whole amount of that VAT refund to leaseholders.
Amendment 5, in clause 127, page 135, line 29, leave out
“at the time the work is completed”
and insert
“when any person to whom the duty under this section is owed has actual knowledge of breach of that duty.”
This amendment provides that time to make a claim in respect of building renovations under section 2A of the Defective Premises Act 1972 only runs from the date a resident has knowledge of the breach, subject to a 25-year longstop.
Amendment 6, in clause 127, page 135, line 33, at end insert—
“(9) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (8), an action for damages for breach of the duty in this section, insofar as that action relates only to the original work in question, shall not be brought after the expiration of twenty-five years from the date the work in question is completed.”
This amendment provides that time to make a claim in respect of building renovations under section 2A of the Defective Premises Act 1972 only runs from the date a resident has knowledge of the breach, subject to a 25-year longstop.
Amendment 4, in clause 128, page 136, line 1, leave out “15 years” insert “25 years”.
This amendment proposes a longer period for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Building Act 1984 considering the recent history of cladding and fire safety related defects and retrospective guidance issued by the government.
Government amendment 41.
Amendment 7, in clause 128, page 136, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) In section 1(5) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 for ‘time when the dwelling was completed’ substitute ‘time when any person to whom the duty under this section is owed has actual knowledge of breach of that duty’.
(2B) After section 1(5) of the Defective Premises Act 1972 insert—
(6) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (5), an action for damages for breach of the duty in this section, insofar as that action relates only to the original construction of the building in  question, shall not be brought after the expiration of twenty-five years from the time the dwelling is completed.’”
This amendment provides that time to bring a claim for damages under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 only runs from the date a resident has knowledge of a breach, subject to a 25-year longstop in relation to claims related to failures during the original construction.
Government amendment 42.
Amendment 8, in clause 128, page 136, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
The Human Rights Act 1998 already protects defendants’ rights in relation to retrospectively extended limitation periods. Removing subsection (5) removes the material risk a court may construe clause 128 in a way that means it has no practical benefit and will lead to years of costly litigation for leaseholders.
Amendment 9, in clause 128, page 136, leave out line 27 and line 28.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 8 because the defined term “Convention Rights” is no longer required.
Government amendment 43.
Amendment 10, in clause 128, page 136, line 29, leave out “90 days” and insert “2 years”.
This amendment allows a period of up to 2 years, instead of 90 days, to obtain the necessary expert evidence required to issue viable claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
Government amendments 44 to 55.
Amendment 3, in clause 132, page 139, line 17, at end insert—
“(f) require members of the scheme under paragraph (a) to obtain policies of insurance that meet the requirements of section (Implied terms: mandatory insurance).”
Government amendments 56 to 58.
Government new schedule 2—Amendments in connection with the new homes ombudsman scheme.
Government amendment 71 and 72.
Government amendment 59.
Government amendment 62.
Government amendments 65 to 69.

Christopher Pincher: It is a great pleasure to report to the House, to move the Government’s new clauses and to be able listen to the important debate that we will have on the Bill’s remaining stages. Over the past few months, the Bill has been subject to scrutiny and debate not only in Committee but through ongoing debate in this House, in the other place and, indeed, throughout the country.
Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities updated the House on our progress in addressing the ongoing issues and protecting leaseholders. We have brought the Bill forward on Report because we are clear that it needs to move forward, but we are conscious that further work needs to be done to it and look forward to working with parties from across the House and with interested parties to ensure that it is further improved in the other place.

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to table amendments in the other place to implement the statutory protection for leaseholders announced last week by the Secretary  of State? By the time that the Bill is debated there, can we expect amendments to have been published so that we can consider them?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said, we are introducing the Bill at this stage because we are conscious that it is very important, and we need to get it through both Houses. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statemen on 10 January, we want to ensure that we look closely to improve the appropriate legislative and statutory protections for leaseholders, and we will have to do that in a parliamentary way, which will of course include the other place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Pincher: Crikey. I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

Bob Neill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the undertaking to bring forward such matters in the other place and for listening to colleagues’ representations on a number of important issues. Given the pressures on business in the other House, will he assure us that there will be time properly to debate the amendments and that they will include important issues such as clarifying the position on internal developer fire safety defects—where there has been a defect that is the fault of the developer and/or regulatory failure and not anything else—just as much as external defects, and consequential costs that stem from those failures such as waking watch? Those are important issues, so I hope he will ensure that we have a proper debate and clarification on them in the other place.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, the time made available for debate in the other place is for the other place to determine, but I am sure that the business managers in both Houses have heard his points. I certainly want to ensure that there is adequate time to debate properly what are somewhat technical and detailed matters so that, working across party and with members of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, we can properly get the Bill right.

Hilary Benn: Further to the answer given to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), will the Minister explain why the statutory protection that the Government are considering will apparently not extend to leaseholders not living in their flats? I know of at least one constituent of mine who was forced to leave his flat and rent it out as that was the only way he could raise the money to pay for the waking watches and insurance bills. Given that he is just as much a victim as those still living in their flats, why should protection against unreasonable costs not be extended to people such as him?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He will know, as the House does, that building safety and the challenges that leaseholders face are very complicated. The House will also know that we have committed to help those in shared ownership, for  example, by making it easier for them to rent out their properties if that is a means of ensuring that they can pay their mortgages. I assure him that we will look closely and work collegiately and collectively across parties, and with other interested parties, to ensure that such issues are effectively and appropriately debated and addressed.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend has done a stoic job in taking the Bill through its various stages. The other place is under incredible pressure in dealing with Government legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned. It is clearly up to business managers there how much time they allocate to amendments and so forth, but will he commit that when the Bill comes back to us with the Lords amendments, we will get a chance to debate them—and, if necessary, correct them and improve them—rather than just a 60-minute debate where hardly anyone gets an opportunity to debate the issues?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The business managers in this House, if not the other House, will have heard his points—he has got a pretty loud voice—and will want to ensure that appropriate, adequate debating time is made available to deal with these technical and detailed issues. As I said, I believe that business managers will have heard what has been said by him and by right hon. and hon. Members and will react accordingly.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Pincher: I will give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and then I probably ought to make a little more progress, having thus far read out only one paragraph of my opening remarks.

Clive Betts: It was very well read, though.
I re-emphasise the point raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). The Select Committee will have a very short but very thorough inquiry into the issues that the Secretary of State rightly raised in his statement to the House last week and the follow-up, but debating time in this place is an issue. The Minister’s answer is very helpful because the Lords will have lots of time, and then it is normal for us to have one hour to consider their amendments. The Bill needs a full-day debate because the amendments that the Government intend to make, following consultation with industry, are key to resolving the issue. I appreciate what the Minister said, and I hope the business managers are as supportive when they come to allocate time.

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman and others remind me of what is often said of politics: even though everything that can be said has been said, not everybody who could say it has said it. He has just spoken for the entire House, and it is of course for the usual channels to determine the time allocated for debating and disposing of business, but the point of view of both sides of the House has thus far, very early in the debate, been heard.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Pincher: I will make a little progress before giving way, if I may.
I have been delighted to talk to colleagues on both sides of the House, following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I draw the House’s attention to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), who cannot be with us today because they are on parliamentary business elsewhere. They commissioned me to tell the House that they are very pleased with the direction of travel set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. They are pleased with the Government’s commitment to continue working with parliamentarians to protect leaseholders and to hold to account those responsible for building defects. If they were here, they would support the Government in the Lobby this afternoon.
I am sure we will address some difficult and challenging questions in this debate. Before we do, I am keen to introduce a group of Government amendments that I trust will be welcomed.

Catherine West: The Minister is generous in giving way. Could he reassure leaseholders in the Roundway in Wood Green that, after several years of lobbying both me and the Government, not only will the whole of the cladding costs be covered under this arrangement but their mortgage issues will be resolved?

Christopher Pincher: The hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner on behalf of her constituents in the Roundway and elsewhere. I do not want to speak about specific buildings, which probably would not be appropriate because I do not know the detail, but we certainly want to make sure that we agree proper leaseholder protections across political parties and with interested parties. We will make amendments to that effect, as well as a suite of non-statutory interventions to make sure the people who ought to pay do pay.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Pincher: I will give way a little more later. I am conscious that I have already spoken for a little while, and there are a number of new clauses and amendments that the House will want to debate and on which Members will want to make their views plain.
The Government are committed to improving redress and consumer protection for home buyers in new buildings. I am therefore pleased that we have introduced access to the new homes ombudsman scheme. Amendments 49, 50 and 72 introduce several changes to the new homes ombudsman provisions to enable them to work practically in Wales and Scotland, and to ensure that the scheme includes provision of information to Ministers in the devolved Administrations.
In addition, amendments 47, 48 and 71 and new schedule 2 remove barriers to enable the new homes ombudsman to work jointly with existing ombudsman schemes and clarify provision of co-operation between the ombudsman and other redress schemes. To ensure that the provisions work for home buyers across our nations, any differences in law and custom and practice will be respected.
Amendments 45, 56 and 57 include requirements  for the Secretary of State to consult the devolved Administrations before making arrangements for the  scheme. We want that consultation to be meaningful and our intention is to make sure that consideration is given to the views of the devolved Administrations at an appropriate time and before key decisions are taken about the ombudsman regime.
Amendments 54 and 55 confer a power on the relevant national authority for England, Scotland and Wales to add the meaning of the term “developer” in the new homes ombudsman provisions, through regulations as appropriate and following a discussion with other relevant national authorities.
New clause 20 makes provision for how Welsh and Scottish Ministers may exercise that power. New clause 21 makes sure that the devolved Administrations are not restricted from bringing forward legislation to alter the ombudsman’s statutory functions in relation to that territory’s future by disapplying a restriction in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Finally, our intention is for the new homes ombudsman to work jointly with the other redress schemes and ombudsmen, and the amendments clarify that intention, removing barriers in existing legislation.

Janet Daby: Will the Minister say how he will keep his promises to leaseholders to ensure that they will not bear the cost of the building safety crisis?

Christopher Pincher: As I have already said, we want to work across the parties to make sure that leaseholders are properly protected and that those who should properly pay the costs of defective fire safety work bear that cost. I have said it from the Dispatch Box, and, on 10 January, the Secretary of State made the same commitment. We will work through the passage of the Bill to make sure that those protections are in place.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Christopher Pincher: I give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I shall make some further progress.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I welcome the ombudsman. Uncompleted estates have been a big issue in my constituency, and I welcome the consultation with the Welsh Government. May I take him back to the intervention from the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about people who are landlords and leaseholders in one property and the need to include them in the scheme. In the spirit of that consultation—whatever compensation scheme comes forward will be administered in Wales by the Welsh Government—can he tell me what discussions he is having with the Welsh Government about that specific group of people who are very worried about the situation at the moment?

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the proposals in general. I can assure him that my officials work closely with officials in the devolved Administrations and we will continue to do so, again, as an example of working with interested parties to make sure that issues are properly addressed.
New clause 22 relates to appeals against registration decisions made by the Architects Registration Board. The new clause gives applicants for registration the  opportunity to appeal a decision made by the board or the registrar to remove or refuse to enter or re-enter a person’s name onto the register. Without that, registrants removed under the new competence regime, to be introduced with clause 137, and first-time registrants will only have recourse to the High Court. The costs of an appeal made to the High Court could be prohibitive.
Amendment 58 will allow the board to delegate its prescription responsibilities to the prescription committee, giving it greater flexibility while maintaining oversight of the prescription of qualifications. Amendments 65 and 69 are consequential to that change.
I now turn to our proposed amendments on redress. The Bill Committee debated section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in significant detail; I recall that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) made several concise and incisive interventions. Section 1 allows a claim for compensation to be brought through the civil courts when a dwelling was “not fit for habitation” on completion. The limitation period in that Act currently stands at six years, which means that a claim must be brought within that period following the completion of the defective works.
As introduced, the Bill proposed to retrospectively and prospectively extend the limitation period to 15 years, meaning that it would not only apply going forward, but that it would be possible to bring a claim with respect to buildings completed from mid-2007 onwards, should the building have been constructed in such a way as to make it unfit for habitation.

Matt Rodda: I ask for the Minister’s further reassurance on some points of detail that relate to these amendments. First, around half of the buildings in my constituency that have difficulties associated with them have non-cladding-related problems. Those include internal compartmentalisation that has been improperly finished. Indeed, in Queens Wharf in Reading town centre, the building owners estimate that nearly £1 million of work needs to be carried out. These are often very large sums. In other cases, the problem is wooden cladding, wooden balconies or a range of other things. Do the amendments relate to these problems, or to flammable cladding only?

Christopher Pincher: The Defective Premises Act has been in effect since 1972, so there is a significant body of case law that those wishing to bring an action, and indeed the courts, will be able to refer to, to determine whether a premises is defective and therefore whether an action should be successful. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with further detail, but I can assure him that the Act is of long standing and has been well used, and there is a body of case law that can be applied.

John Redwood: Is there any right of redress to the regulatory authorities in local government, such as building inspectors and others, who were responsible for signing off on these schemes?

Christopher Pincher: We certainly want to ensure though the Bill, that the building control mechanism and the industry are improved. I think that a suite of measures, including the introduction of better building control measures, the retrospection of the Defective  Premises Act and further work that we may choose to do, working across parties, will help ensure that a very complicated and detailed set of challenges, which have emerged recently but have been developing over many years, are properly addressed.

Mike Penning: I want to clarify, should I be lucky enough to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye later, where my speech might be going. This is retrospective legislation, and that is fantastic—if we can track down the freeholder, the developer and the insurer. If they cannot be tracked down, where does that burden come? Surely we can find a way—I may suggest this in my speech, but I wonder whether the Minister has thought of a way—by which the unfairness of the impact of what we are now prescribing in the Minister’s legislation on those in cases where we cannot find them, as opposed to where we can, can be resolved.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the forewarning of what his speech may contain. I would say to him that quite apart from the body of case law that exists with respect to the 1972 Act, and quite apart from the fact that even if a company has become defunct directors can still be held liable for the decisions made, as it were, “on their watch”, the challenges that he has described are the sorts of things that we will want to discuss in this place and in the other place, across parties, to ensure that such challenges are addressed.

Graham Stringer: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am conscious that I have been speaking for 22 minutes and that there are one or two other remarks that I ought to make before the House has an opportunity to debate the new clauses and amendments.
Since the introduction of the Bill, it has become clear that a number of buildings affected by cladding and other serious fire safety defects were completed prior to 2007. We have listened to hon. Members from across the House who wanted a route to redress for those buildings. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), as well as a great many Opposition Members.
That is why we tabled Government amendment 41, which will retrospectively extend the limitation period for section 1 of the 1972 Act to 30 years, meaning that there will be access to this route of redress for buildings completed from mid-1992 onwards. That represents a substantial extension beyond the current six years. I recognise that changing the law in this way is unusual and that 30 years represents a long limitation period. However, I consider that the exceptionality of the current circumstances in respect of cladding and other serious fire safety defects warrants the longer retrospective limitation period of 30 years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Christopher Pincher: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage.

Graham Stringer: The Minister is being extraordinarily generous with his time. The Government have moved a good distance to get all-party support for what they are doing and to take the burden away from leaseholders. However, I suspect that in many cases, the people responsible for the defects will have liquidated themselves and will no longer be there. Is not one possible solution that a charge be put against the land, so that neither the leaseholder nor the taxpayer has to pay? Has he considered that?

Christopher Pincher: We will consider all proposals that are put to us to see whether they work and to ensure that leaseholders are protected. As the Secretary of State said in his statement, we will conduct a series of summits with the sector to put people on notice that they must pay for the problems they have caused. If they will not do it voluntarily, we will find a means of requiring them to do so.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that I am being generous with my time. In fact, I am being generous with the House’s time. I propose to be less generous in future, but not before I have allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage to intervene.

Stephen McPartland: I would like to thank the Minister on behalf of a number of leaseholders around the country, because our amendments asked for only 25 years and the Government have gone further with 30 years. I put on the record my thanks to the Government for that.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the 30-year retrospection is what we decided on; it is not a typo and it should not read 25 years.
The prospective limitation period will remain at 15 years, as is currently proposed, which still represents a substantial extension beyond the existing six years. In a small number of cases, the retrospectively extended limitation period will expire very soon following the commencement of the provision. We believe that it is important that the extended limitation period is of practical benefit in the case of all buildings that fall within scope. That is why we have proposed adding section 4B(4) to the Limitation Act 1980 through clause 128, which will ensure that there is always a minimum amount of time to lodge a claim under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act for buildings whose limitation periods will be revived for a very short period of time.
As introduced, the Bill provided for an initial period of 90 days in which action relating to defective premises could be taken when the extension was about to run out. I agree with several of my hon. Friends that 90 days is an insufficient amount of time to take the necessary advice and lodge a claim, which is why we are bringing forward amendments 42 and 43 to extend the initial period to one year. That means that those in any buildings completed between mid-1992 and mid-1993 will always have one full year in which to lodge their claim, once this Bill and its provisions apply. These amendments will ensure that the retrospectively extended limitation  period can be of practical benefit in the case of all buildings in scope, and I trust that the House will support them.
Clause 127 expands the scope of the Defective Premises Act to include refurbishment works, and a technical amendment in the next group will ensure that this commences two months after Royal Assent, ensuring that this important new safeguard against shoddy workmanship is taken up as soon as possible. This was a debate that we had, and agreed about, in Committee. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends, and indeed to colleagues across the House, for debating these matters and for tabling amendments in this area, but I hope that in the light of what I have said from the Dispatch Box they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Caroline Lucas: I want the Minister to clarify one last thing before he sits down, because although other hon. Members have raised it, I am still not entirely clear what reassurance there is for our constituents who are leaseholders experiencing problems that are not related to cladding. Others have raised the issues of internal partitions, roof spaces and so forth, and the Minister has referred to other legal channels that may be available, but can he tell me clearly now what reassurance there is for leaseholders who are not facing cladding problems but are facing other fire defects? Will the legal protections that he is offering extend to them?

Christopher Pincher: We will work with parties across this House—across both Houses—and with interested parties to ensure that these issues are properly understood and debated.

Daisy Cooper: Will the Minister give way?

Christopher Pincher: No, I will not.
We want to ensure that these matters are properly debated and properly agreed. We also want to ensure, through a suite of mechanisms such as the extension of the Defective Premises Act and working with the sector to ensure that it pays for the defects it has caused, that this issue for leaseholders, which has gone on for far too long, is finally put to bed. This group of Government new clauses and amendments make key improvements to the Bill and extend its benefits to include the whole of Great Britain. I hope therefore that Members across the House will feel able to support the new clauses and the new schedule and allow them to stand part of the Bill.

Matthew Pennycook: It will not have escaped your notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have taken on this Bill in its final stages, so I must begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for their prodigious efforts during its earlier stages. I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for so ably scrutinising it in Committee.
The issues covered by the Bill have been extensively set out in debates on Second Reading and in Committee. I have no intention of seeking to reprise them this afternoon, but before I turn to part 5 of the Bill and the consideration of the amendments related to it, I feel it is incumbent on me briefly to restate why we believe this legislation is so important. As the House knows, on 14 June 2017, 72 men, women and children lost their lives in an inferno fuelled by the highly combustible cladding system installed on the outside of their 24-storey tower block in north Kensington. That tower block was also compromised by a range of other fire safety defects. I put on record once again our admiration for the survivors and the bereaved of the Grenfell Tower fire and for the wider Grenfell Tower community, who continue to seek not only justice for their families and neighbours but wider change to ensure that everyone is safe in their home.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that we give the debate the time needed to remember the loss of life and the community that survived that terrible moment in our shared history?

Matthew Pennycook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that, as Members consider the Bill and amendments, they have the chance to reflect and to remember why it is going through.
One does not pre-empt the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s conclusions in stating that the horror of that dreadful June night was the product not only of pernicious industry practice, but of state failure—the failure of successive Governments in presiding over a deficient regulatory regime, and the failure to act on repeated warnings about the potential lethal consequences of that fact. The Hackitt review detailed a deeply flawed system of regulation and argued for a radical overhaul of it. To the extent that the Bill delivers on the recommendations of Dame Judith’s report, we remain supportive of it and want to see a version of it on the statute book as soon as possible, given that four and a half years have elapsed since the Grenfell tragedy; however, the House knows we have serious concerns about what is missing from the Bill, and particularly its failure as drafted to provide robust legal protection for leaseholders facing ruinous costs—a point already made by several hon. Members on both sides of the House—for remediating historic cladding and non-cladding defects. In the absence of such protection, the Opposition are clear that the Bill will fail to meet what Dame Judith described as
“The ultimate test of this new framework”,
namely,
“the rebuilding of public confidence in the system.”
As we have heard, part 5 deals with remediation and redress, as well as assorted provisions relating to safety and standards. In Committee, my hon. Friends raised concerns about the limitations of clause 126, which seeks to ensure that landlords take “reasonable steps” to pursue other potential means of recovering the costs before passing them on to leaseholders. We of course believe it is right that landlords be forced to exhaust all means of funding remediation works other than passing on costs to leaseholders, whether that be seeking redress from the original developer in cases where the two are not the same, exploring a claim against a warranty, or  applying for grant funding; however, we remain of the view that this provision gives leaseholders extremely limited protection in practice and we want that to be supplemented with additional provisions for maximum legal protection against the costs of remediating all historical defects—an objective that I know is widely shared across the House, as evidenced by the numerous amendments on the amendment paper today relating in one way or another to leaseholder protection. I will speak on that issue in more detail later in my remarks.
Clause 128 relates to limitation periods and makes changes to the operation of the Defective Premises Act. We supported the proposed expansion of the Act but remain of the view that there are considerable practical obstacles to leaseholders’ successfully securing redress via that mechanism—a point made by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer)—not least given the prevalent use of special purpose vehicles precisely to avoid liabilities of this kind. We believe that the Government are in general overplaying the significance of litigation as a solution of the building safety crisis.

Hilary Benn: While of course we all welcome the extension, in practical terms, our constituents who have, staring at them from the table, bills for sums of money that they cannot afford, will not be in a position to start a legal action that may take several years, at enormous cost and risk and with no guarantee that it will reach a satisfactory conclusion, as my hon. Friend is so ably pointing out. It is not an answer to the problems that so many of our constituents are facing now.

Matthew Pennycook: My right hon. Friend, as so often, is absolutely right that it is an uphill struggle for leaseholders to get together to begin legal action of this kind. He also raises the highly pertinent point that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents freeholders today from passing on costs to those blameless victims of the crisis.

Kate Green: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real opportunity here for the Department to link up with the companies registrar and companies law, and to use the options that exist there to take action early against directors who repeatedly set up these special purpose vehicles, repeatedly carry out substandard developments, and repeatedly liquidate those companies, leaving no assets for leaseholders to act against, and who it appears are in no way acted against, either proactively or reactively, under companies law or by Companies House?

Matthew Pennycook: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which she has made in other debates in this place with regard to unscrupulous developers operating in her constituency. Changes to company law certainly warrant further consideration in that respect.

Peter Bottomley: May I add the problem that leaseholders do not have an interest in a brick of their building and that a claim would need to be made on their behalf by the freeholders to the landlord, who would require indemnity costs from the leaseholders who cannot pay?
May I, through the hon. Gentleman, suggest to the Government that between now and the House of Lords they consider taking a right to take the potential claims by the landlords on behalf of leaseholders into a public agency which can make a public claim against the developers, builders, architects, surveyors, building specification and building controllers, so that money can be brought back from those who were responsible, not the innocent leaseholders who are not?

Matthew Pennycook: I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. That is a very good suggestion, which I hope the Minister will take on board and give some considered thought to.
Notwithstanding our concerns with regard to the limitations of the Defective Premises Act, we argued forcefully in Committee for the Bill to be revised so that the period for claims under the 1972 Act be extended from six to 30 years, rather than from six to the 15 years the Government proposed. In response, the Minister urged my hon. Friends to withdraw our amendment on the grounds that a 15-year limitation period was appropriate and indeed that any further retrospective extension beyond 15 years would increase the chances of the legislation being tested against the Human Rights Act and found wanting. Because that argument was never convincing, we are extremely pleased that the Government have reconsidered their position on this matter in the light of the case made by my hon. Friends in Committee, and have brought forward amendments 41 and 42, which provide for that 30-year limitation period, as well as changes to the initial period. We fully support both amendments.
We also believe that new clauses 11 and 12, proposed by the hon. Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), warrant support. If the Government genuinely believe that litigation has a significant part to play in helping to fix the building safety crisis, they need to give serious consideration to permitting a limited class of claims relating to pure economic loss, rather than just actual physical damage.
Clauses 129 to 134 concern the new homes ombudsman scheme, the creation of which we support, albeit, as the Minister will know, with some concerns about its operational independence and the composition of the new homes quality board. While we remain unconvinced that the new ombudsman and the new code will lead to a step change in developer behaviour and thus a marked increase in the quality of new homes, we see no issue with the scheme being expanded to cover Wales and Scotland, so we support the various Government amendments to that effect under consideration today.
Finally, I want to turn to amendments relating to the fundamental and contentious issue of leaseholder liability. I know I need not detain the House for any great length of time on why it is essential that greater legal protection for leaseholders be put on the face of the Bill.

Janet Daby: My hon. Friend is making excellent progress. My constituents living in unsafe homes due to unsafe cladding feel trapped and isolated in their homes. Does he agree that the Government need to work with lenders to see if properties caught up in the cladding scandal can be sold and re-mortgaged?

Matthew Pennycook: My constituency neighbour, who shares many of the same case load issues relating to the building safety crisis as I do, is absolutely right. A lot that flows from the Secretary of State’s statement last week depends on lenders, insurers and other stakeholders agreeing with the Government’s approach. We wait to see whether that bears any fruit. We know there have been occasions when the Government have made announcements and the industries in question have not responded as the Government expected.
For many leaseholders across the country, lots of whom are first-time buyers who diligently saved to purchase their homes, all but the most superficial remediation and secondary costs will simply be unaffordable. The reason the building safety crisis has caused and continues to cause such abject misery is because so many blameless leaseholders not only feel trapped in their homes physically, mentally and financially, but because they feel let down by the Government. Despite allocating significant public funds to cover the costs of remediation for some buildings and repeatedly promising that all leaseholders should be fully protected, the Government nevertheless, until very recently, had only committed to shielding a proportion of leaseholders from unaffordable costs, which were defined by one Minister a few years ago, if memory serves, as “anything short of bankruptcy.” I must make it clear to this Minister that it has come as a bitter blow to the countless blameless leaseholders across the country who have already been hit with huge bills, both for remediation works and for interim fire safety measures, that the Secretary of State made clear in his statement last Monday that the Government have no plans to secure retrospective financial redress for them. We think that Ministers need to think again about that issue. However, he did commit in that statement, repeatedly and clearly, to bringing forward amendments to the Bill to provide leaseholders with the “most robust legal protection”, extending to
“all the work required to make buildings safe.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 291.]
Given that he rarely misspeaks, that clearly suggests historic non-cladding and historic external wall-related defects. I hope that the Minister can confirm as much today when he responds on this group of amendments.
That robust legal protection for leaseholders is what this legislation must contain, and it is disappointing that no Government amendments providing for it have been tabled for consideration today.

Jonathan Edwards: rose—

Matthew Pennycook: I am going to make some progress, if the hon. Member will forgive me. That legal protection must be delivered as a matter of urgency and in a way that brings immediate protection for leaseholders, because, as I have said, there is currently nothing, aside from the limited clauses in the Bill requiring them to take reasonable steps before they do, to prevent even more freeholders from passing on costs, as we know many are in the process of doing, even now, including several in my constituency, such as the Comer Group in the case of Mast Quay in Woolwich. As well as providing for the establishment of a building works agency, which we believe remains necessary if the Government are to ensure that the pace of remediation across the country is accelerated and that works are properly carried out  and certified, our new clause 3 seeks to provide the maximum legal protection possible for leaseholders facing potential costs to fix historic cladding and non-cladding defects, irrespective of circumstance.

Jonathan Edwards: I fully support Labour’s new clause 3 and if there is a vote on it, I will be supporting it, particularly as subsection (6) would protect the small buy-to-let landlords the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has referred to and I referred to in an intervention. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the scheme in Wales will be administered by the Welsh Government, so may I take it and inform my constituents that new clause 3 will be the basis of the scheme that we see apply to Wales, where Labour is in government?

Matthew Pennycook: It does apply to England and Wales, and I think that as a general point the Government need to co-operate much more closely with the Welsh Government on action on the building safety crisis.
As I was saying, new clause 13, proposed by the hon. Members for Stevenage and for Southampton, Itchen, does the same and we fully support it, as well as their new clauses 5 and 6. We will seek to divide on new clause 3 today, simply to reinforce to the other place the importance we attach to the issue of leaseholder protection, but we do want to work constructively with the Government on this matter in the period ahead, in the light of the change of tone and approach signalled by the Secretary of State last week. We hope that the absence of Government amendments providing for robust leaseholder protection today simply reflects the fact that they are not yet finalised and that we can expect them to be tabled, perhaps along with an amendment implementing a version of the polluter pays proposal, in the other place in due course. The Minister has had a couple of chances to answer this point and obfuscated to a certain extent, so I would appreciate it if he would clarify whether that is indeed the case in his closing remarks on this group, because many leaseholders across the country are seeking certainty on that point.

Clive Betts: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental point here: if for individual blocks of flats we cannot track down the developer or whoever else was involved in the construction and get them to pay through the legal process, and if the Secretary of State’s charm offensive does not persuade the industry as a whole voluntarily to cover these costs, would it not be absolutely wrong if the costs were, effectively, passed on to the social housing sector through cuts in the Department’s budget? Is the alternative, therefore, to look at an extension of the levy or taxation scheme to make the industry pay if it will not voluntarily agree to do so?

Matthew Pennycook: The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right; it would be a travesty if the Government or this Department were forced to raid the affordable homes programme to cover the costs of fixing the building safety crisis. In those circumstances, they would have to look at other options, such as those he has set out.
I will finish by using this brief opportunity to put to the Minister four issues relating to those expected Government amendments on leaseholder protection that arise directly from the commitments made by the Secretary  of State last week. The first issue relates to the point mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in his intervention: which leaseholders will any such robust legal protections cover? The Secretary of State’s statement last week caused a great deal of confusion in that area, so can the Minister clear up the matter today by making it clear that any such protections will apply to all leaseholders, not just leaseholder-occupiers and certainly not just the leaseholders that the Government deem, based on some unknown or unworkable criteria, to be deserving?
The second issue concerns the operational date of any forthcoming provisions. An entirely foreseeable consequence of last Monday’s statement is that any freeholder committed to passing on costs has a powerful incentive to do so before any potential changes to the law. We therefore urge the Government to consider making a retrospective operational date for any forthcoming amendments, linked to the date of last week’s announcement, for which, as the Minister will know, there is recent precedent in relation to the sale of new leasehold houses and onerous ground rents.
The third issue is the obvious need for protection in the interim period, which would be needed even if the Government were minded to legislate for a retrospective operational date. We therefore urge them to consider a new clause to specify that no charges can be levied for defined matters for, say, a period of 12 months. The Minister should note that, with some minor tweaks, our new clause 3 would achieve that.
The fourth issue is that, even if the Bill is ultimately amended to provide robust legal protection for leaseholders from remediation costs, onerous secondary costs remain. I fully accept that the Government have provided funding via the waking watch relief fund to mitigate the impact of associated costs, but that funding has not fully resolved the problems faced by leaseholders in this regard. We therefore urge them to think further about how protection might extend to secondary costs such as surveys, assessments and interim fire safety measures.
In conclusion, we remain supportive of this important piece of legislation and we welcome various Government amendments that will improve part 5 of the Bill, but we wish to see it strengthened further with regard to robust legal protection for leaseholders. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to some of the points that I have raised in relation to that fundamental issue, so that we can not only soon introduce a new regulatory framework that is fit for purpose but finally do right by all the blameless victims of the building safety scandal who can still be protected from financial ruin.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I remind the House that today’s proceedings are divided into three. This is the first group of amendments, new clauses and new schedules that relates to part 5 of the Bill. There will then be another stage on Report that will allow Members to speak to amendments on the other parts of the Bill. After that, there will be Third Reading. Members should not make general speeches about how they feel about the Bill at this point; this part of the proceedings very specifically relates to part 5.
As all the Back-Bench amendments to part 5 have been tabled by Mr Stephen McPartland, I will call him to speak first. At this point, I am not putting on a time limit, because I hope that we will manage without one, but we have less than an hour left for this part of the Bill, so I hope that Members will bear that in mind.

Stephen McPartland: In the interest of helping with time, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that after what the Minister said and the conversations that we have had in the past few days and overnight, we will not be pressing any of our amendments, which are probing amendments, to a vote at the end of the debate. That will hopefully help the next debate.
Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I saw many hon. Members on both sides of the House stand to signal that they wish to speak. I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible so that some of them get more than their normal three minutes on this issue. They are all watching eagerly, so I will do my best.
I start by recording my thanks to the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s intervention has been key in getting us to where we are on leaseholders. He has personally got involved and tried to ensure that we can support them. It is a subject that is close to his heart. To be frank, without his personal intervention and support, we would not have got to where we are, which is a good place for leaseholders.
Millions of leaseholders up and down the country are watching this debate and they are terrified about what is happening to them. They have had the fear of bankruptcy hanging over them for several years. We have been running this campaign for the past 18 months. In fairness to the Government and the Minister, we now have over £9 billion of Government support put forward with other funds on top, so it would be churlish of us, with the very technical amendments I am going to speak to shortly, to try to hold the Government to these specific issues. The Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister himself have made it clear that they are very keen to work with us and cross-party to improve the Bill in the Lords and when it comes back to this House, and for that I put on record my thanks.

Jonathan Edwards: I congratulate the hon. Member on his amendments and his work on this issue. Does he agree that there is a requirement to move with haste? A constituent of mine who has contacted me is facing a bill of £25,000, with a demand for £5,000 by the end of this month, so the Government really need to move very quickly.

Stephen McPartland: I completely accept that point, and the hon. Member will know that we are all in the same position. Every single community is affected up and down the country; there are millions of leaseholders.
The new approach that the Government are taking mirrors a lot of what we want in our amendments on these issues. For example, a number of the amendments I am going to speak to refer to redress. We asked for a period of 25 years, and the Government have come forward with 30 years. We asked for the time in which someone can make a claim to be extended from 90 days to two years, and the Government have come forward with one year. That demonstrates the communication  going on behind the scenes and what we are trying to do to deliver success for leaseholders. In some ways, it does not really matter what our opinions are in this place; what matters is what we deliver for those millions of leaseholders up and down the country, so that they do not face bankrupting bills and huge mental health issues.

Peter Bottomley: Without the calm persistence of my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) in this parliamentary year and the one before, we would not have got this far and, on behalf of 1 million leaseholders in all parts of England and Wales, may I say that we are grateful for their efforts? Will they please keep going?

Stephen McPartland: I am very grateful to the Father of the House, and I would like to thank the cladding groups up and down the country, such as End Our Cladding Scandal UK, the UK Cladding Action Group and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. I record my thanks to the Father of the House and all my colleagues on both sides of the House who have done everything they can to get us to a position where we are working together to secure something that is in the best interests of leaseholders. The way in which the tone has changed, as all of us who have been working on this Bill have seen, and the way in which we now feel we can give the Government room to try to improve the Bill, give us great hope.
A number of the amendments—new clauses 4 to 13 —are specific technical amendments to give the Government examples of how we could fix the problem. The Government have tabled 70 amendments, but of course they still have to come forward with the amendments that we want in the Lords, otherwise the Bill will come back to this House and we will be in the same position, so I think it is important that we continue our efforts.
One of the issues facing leaseholders was the real frustration that VAT is levied on some of the costs. We are asking for the VAT to be scrapped, because when the Treasury puts forward £5 billion, £1 billion of it will be going back to the Treasury automatically; the frustration is understandable. Another example we give is how a previous defects Act—the Defective Premises Act 1972—could be used, as it was for properties with prefabricated concrete. The legislation exists, and these leasehold properties could be incorporated in it. There are a variety of other amendments on technical points, and they are the means of giving the Government examples of how we can support leaseholders.
There is a huge opportunity with new clauses 4 to 13 for the Government to think a little further outside the box. For example, I have a property in my constituency, Vista Tower—one of the famous properties—where the remediation costs are £15 million for 73 flats. The leaseholders paid £200,000 for their flats, and their remediation costs are £212,000, so hon. Members can understand what we are doing and why we originally got involved in this debate. Those people are beyond bankrupt. The mortgage companies are losing money, and that was before the leaseholders got into paying over £300,000 for waking watch and all the other interim costs that have added to the bills.
The Government have come with us and are working in a place where we can try to fix the problem, but there is still a lot more to do. Collectively across the House,  we have to find a way forward. For that particular property, with the announcement that the Secretary of State made, leaseholders’ costs went from £200,000 down to £60,000. If we can get commitments from Ministers to include internal developer-responsible fire safety defects such as missing firebreaks, where the developers illegally constructed the building, leaseholders’ costs will collapse again.
I keep asking the Minister every time he looks at me, speaks to me or walks past me whether he will commit to protecting leaseholders in law with his amendments in the Lords. Obviously we all want that, and it is what leaseholders want, because we want to be in a position legally where we can say to a management company or freeholder, “You can’t charge them for this, and you can’t tell them”—as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has referred to—“that they’ve got 28 days to make this payment.” That is ridiculous, and it is not fair. The Government are working with us and listening to us, but there is a lot more work to do. I would like to continue working with the Government to ensure that we get out there and protect leaseholders.
Madam Deputy Speaker is now staring at me, so I shall bring my remarks to a swift conclusion. I would like to thank everybody who supported us throughout the campaign. We are not there yet, but we are very close to getting there and supporting millions of constituents up and down the country. I will not be pressing my amendments.

Clive Betts: The principle that leaseholders should not have to pay for issues that are not their responsibility, as they bought properties in good faith, was first established in the Select Committee report in July 2018. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) on the excellent work he has done in pursuing this issue from the Conservative Benches. The Select Committee, on a cross-party basis, has pursued it as well. I checked today, and we have done five separate reports, all of which have said that leaseholders should not have to pay. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is in his place, has been party to all those discussions and reports. We have worked on an absolutely cross-party basis, as is correct. It is welcome that the Secretary of State made his statement the other day and effectively confirmed that as well. We have made it clear that this problem does not just apply to cladding; it applies to other defects as well. That has been an important issue, which the Government did not accept to begin with but have now got to the point of accepting.
The Government have responded with the initial money to deal with the aluminium composite material cladding that was on Grenfell, and then with the £1 billion—extended to £5 billion—building safety fund. That has been a step forward, but it will not cover the totality of the cost. We on the Select Committee have said right from the beginning that those who are responsible for defects on individual buildings should have to pay, but we recognise the impossibility of leaseholders taking on legal actions and being successful with them. Certainly, the Government are stepping in and adding some weight to try to involve the developers of buildings—the building firms that did the construction work—and the product suppliers. Of course, an awful lot of responsibility lies  with them; Dame Judith Hackett’s report identified how many of the suppliers of products and materials were hawking their wares from one testing station to another until they found one that approved them. That is completely unacceptable, and they should be held to account as well. In the end, there will be many buildings for which even the owners, and certainly the initial developers, cannot be properly traced, and there may have to be a responsibility placed on the whole industry.
I come back to the point that I just raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook): what happens if the industry does not volunteer the money that is necessary? Let us make it clear that social housing providers are already having to pay some of the costs. On the initial scheme for ACM cladding, social housing providers were treated equally with private owners. That has not been the case since with the building safety fund. A social housing provider has to show almost extreme distress to get any money.
What is happening now? An interesting article in Inside Housing says that social housing providers, particularly housing associations, are passing on 500% increases in service costs—not just to leaseholders, but to tenants. It is absolutely wrong that among people living side by side in a flat, the leaseholder should eventually be protected through the legislation that we hope eventually to see from the Government, which is to be welcomed, while the tenant next door has to pay extra costs—not merely for their own flat, but possibly to take up the costs on the flat next door, which is now owned by a leaseholder. That cannot be right, that cannot be fair, and that cannot be just. The challenge is to treat social housing tenants the same. We are hearing evidence all the time—from housing associations, the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and councils—that the costs that are being incurred by social housing providers are not merely adding to the costs of their tenants but mean that they are cutting back on future house building programmes. That is what is happening and it has to be addressed.

Andrew Slaughter: It is happening now on a very large scale. This is what one of my major social landlords said about remedial works:
“The cost of this…is in the tens of millions of pounds and has led to us having to significantly reduce our development plans and slow down some of the investment work that we had planned to complete in our existing homes. If we were to try and fund the costs of this work for our leaseholders…this would effectively mean that social housing rents were being used to subsidise costs for leaseholders.”
It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Clive Betts: Absolutely. We have those immediate problems with the costs that are being borne by social housing providers.
If, in the end, the Government cannot get the money from the industry on a voluntary basis, and the Treasury is saying that there will be no extra money from the central pot and no extra taxation or levy, then there will be a cut to the Department’s own programmes, which effectively means the social housing programmes for the future. That will be another cutback to the badly needed homes that should otherwise be built. I say to the Minister and to my own Front-Bench colleagues that,  in the end, these are the principles that we have to achieve: no costs on leaseholders, no costs on tenants, and no cuts to the future social house building programme either.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: We have less than three quarters of an hour left, so I will have to impose an initial time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee. He and I have spent many happy hours poring over this draft Bill, in the first place, and, going forward, different reports.
Essentially, there are four separate categories on remediation that fit within the Building Safety Bill. The first, as everyone agrees without question, is, for tall buildings of seven storeys and above, removing the cladding and making the building safe. The second is the buildings of six storeys and below for which the Government came up with the forced loan scheme. I am delighted to see the death of that scheme. I could never see how it was going to work, so that is good news. The other two categories are the tall buildings with fire safety defects and the buildings of six storeys and below with fire safety defects. We can all agree that the one set of people who should not have to pay for remedying this are the leaseholders, because they never designed them and they never knew anything about them before they moved in. However, this scandal still goes on. Only last week, a planning application was presented to the planning committee at Tower Hamlets for a building of 52 storeys with only one staircase as a route to escape. The building industry does not show any signs of correcting what has been done, so we have to correct it.
I take my right hon. Friend the Minister’s remarks seriously. I look forward to the amendments that are going to be moved in the other place that I hope we can then debate here. However, these are very complex areas and there are immense questions to be answered. I well remember that when we debated the Bill that became the Fire Safety Act 2021, we were told that protecting leaseholders should not be done then but we should wait for the Building Safety Bill—and here we are, right now. The crunch issue is that leaseholders up and down the country have received enormous bills. Some have made arrangements to pay; some have even paid them. They are told, “Tough—you’ve paid and you won’t be compensated as a result.” If we had moved the amendments to the Fire Safety Act, we would have protected those leaseholders, but we failed to do so.
As I have said to the Secretary of State, I welcome his commitment to resolve this issue, but I trust that when we come to the amendments on remediation, we will do two things. The first is that we will retrospectively put a date on what happens. It will not be acceptable to wait until this Bill becomes law and facilitate the unscrupulous individuals who may bill the leaseholders between now and then, which would be outrageous.
The other issue that is terribly important in this whole process is that at some stage, with regard to all the buildings that we are talking about, someone signed off on their being in accordance with regulations. Insurance covers that particular aspect, so here is an alternative  solution. Given that insurance companies insured the people who signed these buildings off, and they were clearly not in accordance with the regulations at the time, let us make claims against the insurance companies that still exist and could be made to pay for this remediation. That would be a much better solution than either the taxpayer paying or robbing the leaseholders. It would at least give us some protection.
I welcome the Government amendments, and I welcome the conversion that has taken place in the Department to what the Select Committee said in the first place. We are making progress. We are almost there. We have only a little a little way to go before every single one of our recommendations has been endorsed. We look forward to that happening, and indeed to having a Bill of which we can all be proud, which protects leaseholders and protects the industry for the future.

Patricia Gibson: Let me begin by echoing the sentiments expressed earlier. We must be mindful of all those who died tragically in the Grenfell fire, which prompted much of the work that we are debating today.
The majority of the Bill relates only to England or to England and Wales, so I will necessarily keep my remarks on behalf to the Scottish National party short. I am sure that that will be music to many ears in the Chamber.
We can all agree on the necessity and the importance of raising the standards of conduct of developers. House buyers need to have confidence in the safety and quality of their homes, which is why the Scottish Government support the principle of the new homes ombudsman scheme proposed in part 5 of the Bill. Housing is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, who could devise their own provisions for a Scottish system, but the benefits of having a single system to operate on a UK-wide basis are self-evident. However, it is also true to say that the scheme must fully meet the needs of Scotland, so this Bill ought to confer greater powers to Scottish Ministers, similar to those of the Secretary of State. It is essential for part 5 to acknowledge and respect the devolution settlement. The Secretary of State and, I am sure, the Minister will understand that SNP co-operation in relation to the new homes ombudsman scheme in no way diminishes our opposition to the form and intention of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
It is fully expected that meaningful consultation will minimise the risk that the ombudsman scheme is contrary to the wishes and aspirations of the Scottish Government, so that homeowners in Scotland can benefit from it. If that turns out not to be the case, the Scottish Government have the option to withdraw from the scheme without contractual penalties and other repercussions. No one would wish to see that happen, and we need to be assured that the Minister and the Department will work, and continue to work, in a collaborative, consultative and collegiate way with the Scottish Government to deliver the scheme for Scotland.
In that spirit, I say to the Minister that given the confusion and delay over issues of cladding, nearly five years since the tragedy of Grenfell, we need a clear commitment that he will work constructively with the   Scottish Government to provide clarity about consequential funding, so that the Scottish Government can plan their response appropriately. Will he tell us how much funding there will be, and when it will be delivered to Scotland?
I understand that the Secretary of State has committed himself to working with the Scottish Government on these matters—and no doubt the Minister has done so as well—but certainty is important. I am sure the Minister will understand that, so I am keen to hear what he has to say about the timing, levels and delivery of the funds that Scotland can expect.

Felicity Buchan: Let me begin by paying tribute to my constituents and the community of north Kensington.
I welcome the Bill, and I welcomed last week’s announcements that leaseholders in intermediate buildings would not have to pay for the remediation of cladding and other fire safety defects. I understand from the Minister that this will be incorporated in legislation in the other place. I want to stress how crucial it is that we get that right: it is critically important that we have robust legal protection for leaseholders. I welcome the statement that those on the Front Bench will listen to all good ideas, but it is important for us to be able to put this into practice quickly and effectively. I ask the Minister, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to ensure that when the Bill comes back to this place, there is the opportunity for full debate and full scrutiny.
A number of Members said that some developers and freeholders have been behaving very badly, and I have such a situation in my constituency. Leaseholders in Collier House have paid for the remediation and the building is eligible for an existing fund, yet the building owner, outrageously, will not apply for those moneys. He does not want to get involved because the leaseholders have already paid. Such situations are clearly wrong in terms of how people should behave. I ask the Minister, as colleagues have, to ensure that we look to remedy situations where leaseholders have paid and take that into consideration. We need to find solutions, because they paid thinking that they were doing the right thing, and they may now be out of pocket as a result.
In conclusion, I very much welcome the direction of travel. However, it will be critically important to get the proposals right in the other place, and I ask that we have the opportunity for full scrutiny of what the other place decides.

Matt Rodda: I offer my support to the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan). My thoughts are still with her community five years after the disaster. I am sure that the whole House would echo that support for her community.
I also thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene and for partially addressing my points. However, I want to expand on them, because they are very relevant to our discussions. The challenges for many people in my community will come from the sheer complexity of the situation. It is extremely stressful for many leaseholders and tenants, as Members across the House have said. It is very difficult for them to live in buildings with enormous problems. In many cases, they have suffered from these  problems for some years, living in a period of prolonged stress and difficulty—both emotional and financial stress—and I look forward to working with the Minister and the Government to try to deal with this very serious problem.
I will highlight some of the practical difficulties that we need to tackle, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), mentioned. The great difficulty for many residents in my constituency and others is that the routes to redress are limited. In many cases, the legal route that the Minister outlined will be extremely difficult.
Perhaps I can describe the type of blocks that I am referring to. Many of the cases in Reading and in Woodley—a town next to the main town of Reading—involve low-rise blocks, so there has been a delay because they are lower- rise. There are problems from issues other than cladding, and many tenants and leaseholders live in these blocks. In one of the biggest neighbourhoods in Reading, there is a large area called Chatham Place, with a series of blocks and a series of different problems, including wooden cladding, balconies and a range of other things. There is also a combination of leaseholders and social housing tenants in the same block. There are multiple problems, and the Minister is right to explore the legal route to redress, but there are very serious challenges because of the difficulty of getting a group of people together to take action and of tracing the legal entities, companies, developers—in some cases, the developers are overseas—architects and the range of others involved. I ask the Minister to work with Opposition Members to look at the issue again and explore other avenues for toughening up the Bill. I look forward to the Lords amendments and I ask him to come back and look at this Bill again in more detail.
I wish to make two other points, also on behalf of local authorities and housing associations. The first point, which was raised with me by a local council that represents a town centre ward in Reading, was the difficulty, even now, for local authority officers to understand the exact guidance on different types of cladding. The issue of flammable insulation in walls was raised with me and there does not seem to be a clear answer on that. Secondly, in my area, housing associations were some of the first building owners to take action. However, as was rightly mentioned, these housing associations and their tenants could inadvertently be penalised. Please will the Minister look into that and provide reassurance?

Bob Neill: I restate my welcome for the Minister’s tone and approach to the Bill, as well as that of the Secretary of State, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). The Minister’s approach does enable some of us to support the Government in the Lobby tonight when we might have been tempted to do otherwise, given their clear undertaking to look at the substance—at any rate—of the significant number of amendments in my hon. Friend’s name, which I and many other Conservative Members have signed. We look forward to taking that forward.
I stress again in particular that leaseholder protection is critical. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made an important point on that, and as someone who has spent all his working life involved in  litigation of one kind or another, I can tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the legal route is always a risky one and always an expensive one.
The real problem that we need to deal with is the position of residents such as mine in Northpoint in Bromley. Their flats are unmortgageable, they have exhausted their funds on a waking watch and other remedial measures, and they cannot realistically rent out their flats—perhaps some can—so it is not realistic to suggest that collectively or individually they could fund legal action against their landlord, which is an offshore property trust. I have nothing against giving leaseholders the ability to litigate—where that can be done, that is fine—but that will not be the answer for many people, so we need a fail-safe system to protect them. The best route is a form of liability clearly falling on the developer. That is supported by the Law Society, which recognises the value of litigation in its right place but also its limitations, and I hope that the Government will work with the Law Society, which has real expertise in such matters, to strengthen the provisions.
I turn to finding a means of capturing the consequential defects, which I have previously raised with the Minister. We have done a lot on that already—I welcome what was done with the waking watch relief fund and so on—but there are still a number of areas not yet explicitly covered by the Bill’s provisions where the fault, and therefore the cost on the leaseholder, flows clearly and demonstrably from the regulatory failure or the failure by the developer to build in accordance with the regulations then in place. My right hon. Friend and I have talked about the protection required for that—I am glad that the loan scheme has gone, because that was not fair—which could be some form of insurance arrangement, or the Government by some means funding the cash flow to enable works to be done and recouping that through a levy system from those in the industry who are at fault in some way. I think that would be perfectly workable. He has moved a good way towards that, and I ask him to continue talking to those involved about taking that one stage further to deal with that important issue.
Finally, I specifically commend to the Minister new clause 10, which stands in my name and that of a number of hon. Friends, which is about the 25-year post-sale insurance cover. That is really important. Again, the Law Society supports the measure, and I think that there is a lot of recognition of the good sense of that from the insurance sector, too. If he could take that on board, that would remove a great deal of risk of future litigation, should—heaven forbid—things go wrong in the future.
We have had a constructive set of proposals from the Government, but there is still more to do. I thank the Minister, but I hope that, in the spirit in which he started, he will take away the means to work constructively across the House to deal with people who are in an appalling situation through absolutely no fault of their own. That is what we need to stress time and again.

Daisy Cooper: When we started on the Fire Safety Bill, I tabled the first amendment to the Bill to try to protect leaseholders from these unimaginable, eye-watering costs. The Government said repeatedly that that Bill was not the place for it. Eighteen months on, we have had a huge cross-party effort, and while we are considering this second piece of legislation there is still no guarantee  to protect leaseholders from those costs in law. The Government’s tone has changed, and I welcome that, but their position has not. I welcome talk about working cross-party and collaboratively, but I urge the Minister and the Government to make clear assurances on the record today, because I do not believe that the good will displayed in the House will last much longer if we do not get better answers.
The Secretary of State announced last week that the loan scheme will be scrapped and that cladding costs will be covered for buildings over 11 metres. Where is that statutory protection? It should be on the amendment paper today, and we should be discussing it in this House, not kicking it into the long grass.
On non-cladding problems and fire safety defects, the Minister must be aware that since the Secretary of State made his announcement last week there has been a huge rush of bills and enforcement notices because freeholders think they can get away with suddenly asking leaseholders to pay for these first safety defects. Will the Minister make a strong statement at the Dispatch Box today that he intends to issue a moratorium on freeholders issuing such enforcement notices, as that is what is needed?
I welcome that action under the Defective Premises Act will be extended to 30 years, but the Minister knows as well as I do that, as we showed in Committee, the current legislation is condemning leaseholders to years and years of litigation, litigation, litigation. In some cases, they may have to take their freeholders to court twice before they can take those responsible to court. That is not a satisfactory situation.
The Government keep saying that they want to work with freeholders and developers to find a voluntary solution, but cladding victims and fire safety victims have given the Government the answer time and again. They are asking the Government to stump up the cash to make homes safe and to use their power to go after those responsible.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s carefully crafted answers on when we might see some of these legal protections. I note that the Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords is scheduled for the start of February, yet the Secretary of State has indicated that he wishes to continue his discussions with those responsible until March. When questioned by other hon. Members on whether the House of Lords will see these amendments, the Minister said it “may include” in the other place, not that it “would include”. Will he make a clear commitment from the Dispatch Box today that the statutory protections announced last week will, in fact, be amendments to this Bill, that those amendments will be introduced in the other place, and that sufficient time will be provided in this House for us to discuss them? If the Government make any attempt to railroad this Bill through without those protections in place, he will have a very significant cross-party fight on his hands.

Mike Penning: I do not think there is a conflict, but I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As an ex-fireman, although my concerns and thoughts are with the victims of the Grenfell fire and their families and loved ones, I say that we must put on the record our thanks to the emergency  services, and particularly the firefighters, who have to live with what they saw—most of them will never have seen such an incident in their life. They went in one direction while, quite understandably, the public went in the other.
I do not disagree with anything I have heard in the House today. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and I are as one. If this is not sorted in the other House, as promised, we in this House will sort it. That is not a threat but a promise. The Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, as we heard, have been brilliant in changing direction. They realised the risk that no thought at all had been given to leaseholders.
I declare an interest because my daughter has a leasehold property. When she bought it, why would she have dreamed that this situation would occur and she would face such penalties?
When I intervened on the Minister, I said I would mention a way out. Those hon. Members who have been here long enough will remember that I took the Mesothelioma Act 2014 through this House. The Act compensated people whose lives, through no fault of their own, had been devastated by asbestos. We could not fine the insurers, the companies, the directors or the shareholders, so they had suffered and they had not got compensation. This Bill is an opportunity to resolve the problem for leaseholders where we cannot impose fines.
There is no reason why leaseholders should drag themselves through the courts. We are trying to sort the matter out in this House. We should put a levy on the insurers. Without any doubt, the insurers got the premium from these companies, because otherwise they would not have been allowed to build the properties, so liability insurance was in place. The fact that we cannot find the developers—some have gone offshore in parts of my constituency—is irrelevant now. If we can find them, fine, but if not, we will levy the insurers.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel. We have already done it with the mesothelioma Bill. Originally, we gave the victims 80% of the compensation that they would have got through the courts. Eventually, we gave them 100%. This House was unanimous in its support of the Bill as it went through its stages. It was probably one of the easiest Bills that I have taken through the House—apart from having to pronounce mesothelioma, which, to this day, still troubles me, as Members may have notice.
This is an option that I have mentioned to the Minister before. I have said that his civil servants can come and talk to me, or to anybody at the Department for Work and Pensions who took that legislation through. I am more than happy for that to happen. Sadly, though, no one has talked to me about this—I am gently looking towards the civil servants in the Box, which I am not meant to do. This is a great opportunity to right a wrong that we can see coming down the line here.

Peter Bottomley: Were claims to go through the courts, they would be aimed at the developers, the builders, the architects, the surveyors, the component suppliers, the building controllers and the building regulations specifiers, all of whom were insured or operating under Government. We need to get them altogether around the table and say, “What will be the total liability?” We would save the lawyers’ costs and get the money in very fast. Leaseholders will be protected. Their homes will be safe and they will be saleable.

Mike Penning: The Father of the House is absolutely right. When we put to the insurers this idea that they should compensate those people whose lives and loved ones had been affected by the asbestos, did they like it? No, they hated it. They fought tooth and nail not to do it, but we did it, and we did the right thing. When we come to part 5, Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to catch your eye again.
May I just touch on a point that many colleagues have raised today? If people, in fear of threatening letters from lawyers and bailiffs, paid the remedial costs on their lease in good faith, how can it be right for us in this House to say that they did the wrong thing, while the people who held off paying those costs did the right thing? That sticks in my throat. It cannot be right that we penalise people who feel that they did the right thing. I said this to the Secretary of State during his statement. I am not saying that he dismissed it; he probably just thinks it is very difficult. Yes, it is very difficult, but that is what this place is for—when things become difficult, we resolve the problem. We have an opportunity with the insurers.
As we have heard from Members across the House, these bills are dropping on people’s doorsteps now, and it is happening in my constituency. They are innocent people who have done nothing wrong other than wanting to get on the housing ladder. Today we have an opportunity to address this. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) that we do not need to move these amendments now. We will wait to see what happens when the Bill goes to the Lords, but by golly we will move them if it comes back.

Hilary Benn: The one thing that has united the House today has been support for the principle embodied in new clause 13. There is a huge burden of expectation now on the shoulders of the Minister and the Secretary of State because of the commitment that was given in the recent statement, and we are all anxious to see how the Government intend to fulfil it.
The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), whom it is a great pleasure to follow, asked earlier what happens if the funds are not forthcoming from those who are still in existence who were responsible. The answer is that there is a mechanism already in place, which is the levy that the Government previously announced. I have no objection to adding insurers to those who are levied, because it is a collective failure on the part of the industry. That is the point. Even if we put on one side debates about cladding, for every one of the buildings that have been discovered to have missing fire breaks, I can guarantee that the plans specified that the fire breaks should be installed, but they were not. As a result, we have a generation of shoddy, unsafe buildings and it is our constituents who are feeling the pain.
Secondly, once we have sorted out who is paying, we really have to find a way of getting the work done. I must say to the Minister that having observed, as we all have, the back-and-forth between managing agents, freeholders, developers and the building safety fund, we can see that that is not a very efficient way to solve the problem. That is why the buildings works agency approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) spoke about earlier is such a good idea. It is a good idea for two reasons. First, we would have a body whose job was to find, fix,  fund and then recoup through the levy that we have discussed, which would be quicker. Secondly, it would avoid the stand-offs that are taking place. I have seen one case where the expert advisers to the building owners have said that the zinc cladding on wooden battens is not safe, but the building safety fund has said that it is.
Another reason that the Government should adopt our proposal for a buildings works agency is that it would be the perfect vehicle to review the safety assessment of all of the buildings, which the Secretary of State spoke about last week, and in the end be the referee—the judge and the jury—that says what is safe, what works and what work needs to be done.
The last point I want to make is about the need for speed. We are four and a half years on from Grenfell, and every single day that passes without the situation being resolved puts enormous strain on our constituents. They also have to shell out for the waking watches and insurance premiums that are the consequence of a problem for which they bear no responsibility whatsoever. Until the work is done, people’s flats continue to be worthless and they cannot get on with their lives. Some people have had to move out of their flat, get a new job in another part of the country and rent their flat out, and that is why it would be totally unfair to punish them for not being resident leaseholders. The sooner there is absolute clarity about what the statutory protection will look like, the sooner the work can be done and the day can eventually arrive when leaseholders can put behind them this groundhog day series of mornings when they have woken up thinking, “Oh my God, I am still stuck in this nightmare”, and instead wake up looking forward with some confidence to getting on with the rest of their lives.

Kelly Tolhurst: I want to thank hon. Members across the House for the work they have put in. I also pay tribute to the Minister, whom I have spoken to on a number of occasions about the issues facing my constituency. I know that the Government have been listening and working really hard with colleagues to get to a place where people can be satisfied. As has been mentioned, the landscape is really complicated and the Government are trying to right some wrongs of the past.
I very much welcomed the Secretary of State’s statement last week, but I want to echo what has been said by colleagues across the House about what comes next and the protection that we will give to leaseholders. For example, at the Wharf in my constituency there has been a lack of clarity and transparency from the management company about the cladding and fire safety works that need to be carried out. The management company, Y&Y, is in the process of taking the leaseholders to a first-tier tribunal to award costs, adding a 5% commission. Since the statement last week, I have asked the management company if it could please pause this activity until the Government have moved further, but it has said that it will continue to go to the first-tier tribunal for costs. That will put some of the leaseholders in a really difficult position. Some of the people occupying those properties will not be able to pay those bills if the management company goes ahead with its actions before  they have been given any security by the Minister, so I want to labour that point. We are also talking about historical payments that have been made, but this is happening as we speak.

Mike Penning: One option for someone with a freehold property is normally to claim on their buildings insurance’s legal protection. A leaseholder has to pay the premium to the freeholder but does not have any protection. This is another area of the law that could be changed.

Kelly Tolhurst: My right hon. Friend is quite right. I welcome many of the amendments, and I welcome a lot of what is in the Bill. I am pleased with the extension on limitations.
During covid, a fire ripped through a building on the Causeway in my constituency. Again, it is not a high-rise block and is under 18 metres. Other hon. Members have mentioned firebreaks and the lack of such work. Coincidentally, further structural defects have been found in the investigation work carried out after the fire. They would not have been found if the fire had not ripped through the building in 2020.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, these buildings have been signed off. I was a marine surveyor in a previous life, and if I had signed off the builds of boats that had major defects, my professional indemnity insurance would have had to pay out and I might not have got insurance next time around because of my poor performance. How is it acceptable that people can sign off such buildings and give certificates to the residents—our constituents—who buy them? That gives the residents confidence in the quality and safety of what they are buying. We need to look at the insurance argument; it is a valid point. To be frank, it is a scandal that those poor individuals have bought those buildings. The profession has a lot to answer for, as far as I am concerned.
Ultimately, I want to press the Minister on what assurances and comfort he can give my constituents who are watching the debate and who have been following the Bill with bated breath for many months, hoping that it will be their salvation.

Shabana Mahmood: I shall speak to Opposition new clause 3 and to the amendments that, although they will not be pressed to a vote this evening, would protect leaseholders from the costs of not only cladding removal, but the remediation of non-cladding defects.
I can hardly believe that it is four and a half years since the horrific fire at Grenfell, and still we are fighting for the robust legal protection that leaseholders in my constituency and across the country need and deserve. It is too easy to assume that removing cladding is the beginning and end of the scandal; the costs of remediating non-cladding fire safety defects are just as ruinous, and blameless leaseholders should not be picking up those costs. I have seen for myself the extent of fire safety defects at various buildings in my constituency, including the Brindley House development, where the scale of the  missing firebreaks and other defects was truly shocking. The people who were responsible for putting up that building were grossly negligent and, in my opinion, complete cowboys.
The regulatory failure whereby buildings were declared fit for human habitation when they contained defective or inappropriate fire safety measures, or when those measures were wholly absent, is staggering. When there were negligent and dishonest practices, the costs of remediation should not fall at the feet of my constituents. A commitment to full legal protection for leaseholders from all costs—both for the removal of dangerous cladding and for the remediation of all other fire safety defects—should have been added to the Bill today, because those issues are not new and have been the subject of intense debate for years.
Ministers and their officials know full well the contours of the debate and the issues at stake, so it is not good enough that the Government did not make such amendments today. Instead, we will have to wait to see whether full legal protection is made available when the Bill goes to the other place. We may understand parliamentary procedure and the different staging posts of a Bill, but to my constituents watching from the outside, every single staging post feels like a slap in the face when they are not given the full protection that they need and deserve.
I associate myself with the comments that have been made about insurance, particularly professional indemnity insurance, but I want to mention the increased insurance premiums that many of our constituents have faced across the country. I have been writing to the Government, the FCA and others for more than two years to ask for action against the insurance industry for the huge increase—the hike—in premiums that our cladding-affected leaseholders have faced. That increase bears no resemblance to the mitigations that our constituents have paid for to decrease the risks in their buildings.
People have paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for new fire alarm systems and internal compartmentation to try to bring the risk down in their buildings, yet that is never reflected in the insurance premiums that they have to pay. That is unconscionable. There are big questions for the wider insurance sector to answer, in addition to the buildings industry. It seems to me that someone who has profited from, for example, charging a building in my constituency an insurance premium of £700,000 in total, which has never come down, has some big questions to answer.
I hope that when the Minister brings the Bill back to this place, we get the time for adequate debate and the further amendments that we need. I hope that we take action on insurance and perhaps even—God help us—implore the FCA to do its job and stand by our constituents, who deserve the regulator’s protection. When the Bill comes back, I hope that it addresses all those issues, as it is high time that the Government did right by leaseholders.

Christopher Pincher: I congratulate right hon. and hon. Members on their contributions to this important debate and to the amendments that we are debating. In the short time that I have, I will say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who raised the terrible  plight faced by her constituents at Brindley House, as did the Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street. Too many people, for far too long, have been far too worried. We have to end this scandal.
Several hon. Members asked whether we intend to bring forward legal protections in the House of Lords. I assure the House that we do. We certainly want to ensure that all leaseholders in medium and high-rise buildings, who live in them or who used to live in them but have had to move out and sub-let because of the situation in which they find themselves, will have put in place the robust legal protections to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred. We want to work cross-party and with interested parties to ensure that those robust protections are right.
We believe that leaseholders should not be asked to pay anything further until those legal protections are in place, as was raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. I encourage any hon. Member who is aware of demands from freeholders that their leaseholders pay to make me or my officials aware of that demand.
I am also grateful for the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) about the, shall we say, peculiarities of the insurance system. Some of those are wider issues that go beyond the Bill, but I am happy to discuss how we can resolve such issues with them.
I will certainly work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is right that there are limitations through mitigation, but the law can change the culture. That is part of the point of bringing forward the Bill—to change the culture of the sector.
We will instigate a summit with the sector to ensure that it pays what it owes, and if it will not pay voluntarily, we will introduce appropriate mechanisms to ensure that it does. I am conscious that the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), referred to the Defective Premises Act 1972. I may have misheard him, but I think he suggested that that Act is not available for use by leaseholders. That is not correct. Leaseholders are able to avail themselves of the Act, as may any freeholder.
I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have only 14 more seconds in which to speak. Let me reassure Members that we want to work across the House to bring forward sensible legal protections in amendments in the other place, and we will do that as soon as may be.
Debate interrupted (Programme Orders, 21 July 2021 and this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 21 - Amendment of the Government of Wales  Act 2006

“In Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru), in paragraph 10(2), at the end insert—
‘(o) the new homes ombudsman.’”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This new clause removes the need for consent to a provision of an Act of Senedd Cymru which removes or modifies any function of the new homes ombudsman or which confers power to do so. The new clause will be inserted after clause 134.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22 - Architects: Appeals Committee

“(1) The Architects Act 1997 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (the Board)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) There is to be an Appeals Committee of the Board.’;
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Part 2A of that Schedule makes provision about the Appeals Committee.’
(3) In section 4 (registration: general)—
(a) in subsection (4)(b) for ‘refer the application to the Board’ substitute ‘refuse the application’;
(b) in subsection (6)—
(i) omit ‘(4) or’;
(ii) for the words from ‘direct’ to the end substitute ‘—
(a) direct the Registrar to enter the person’s name in the Register if it is satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered, or
(b) direct the Registrar to refuse the application if it is not so satisfied.’
(4) In section 6(4B) (notice of refusal of application) for the words from ‘in the case’ to ‘section 4(2A)’ substitute ‘of an application’.
(5) In section 9 (competence to practise) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A notice under subsection (2) must state reasons for the decision.’
(6) In Part 5 (general and supplementary) before section 22 insert—
‘21A Appeals to the Appeals Committee
(1) A person may appeal to the Appeals Committee against—
(a) a decision to refuse the person’s application for registration, or
(b) if the person is a person to whom paragraph (b) of section 9(1) applies, a decision to remove or not to re-enter the person’s name in the Register as a result of section 9(1).
(2) The Board may make rules about appeals to the Appeals Committee, including in particular rules about—
(a) the period within which any appeal must be made;
(b) the way in which an appeal is to be made or withdrawn;
(c) the fee that must be paid on the making of an appeal (including circumstances in which that fee may or must be refunded);
(d) the procedure to be followed by the Appeals Committee in relation to an appeal;
(e) the effect of the making of an appeal, pending its determination, on the decision appealed against.
(3) On the determination of an appeal, the Appeal Committee may make any decision that could have been made by the person who made the decision appealed against.
(4) The Appeals Committee must, within the prescribed period after determining a person’s appeal, serve on the person written notice of the decision made on that determination.’
(7) In section 22 (appeals)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) for paragraph (a) substitute—
‘(a) a decision of the Appeals Committee under section 21A, on an appeal made by the person;’;
(ii) for paragraph (c) substitute—
‘(c) the person’s name not being re-entered in the Register under section 18 as a result of section 9(1);’;
(b) in subsection (2) omit ‘Subject to subsection (3),’;
(c) omit subsection (3);
(d) in the heading at the end insert ‘to the court’.
(8) In section 24(2) (service of documents) for ‘or 15(3)’ substitute ‘, 15(3) or 21A(4)’.
(9) In Schedule 1 (the Board and its committees) after Part 2 insert—

Part 2A - The Appeals Committee

17B (1) The Board may make rules about—
(a) the composition of the Appeals Committee;
(b) the selection and term of office of members of the Appeal Committee (including casual vacancies);
(c) the meetings and procedure (including chairing and quorum) of the Appeal Committee;
(d) votes of the Appeal Committee (including providing for a casting vote and the way in which it is to be exercised).
(2) Before making rules about the composition of the Appeals Committee, the Board must consult the Secretary of State.’
(10) In Part 4 of that Schedule (general provisions), after ‘Professional Conduct Committee’, in each place it occurs, insert ‘, the Appeals Committee’.”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This new clause amends the Architects Act 1997 so as to require a committee called the Appeals Committee to be established. The committee is to determine certain appeals relating to registration. The new clause will be inserted into Part 5, after clause 137.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

‘(1) The remediation costs condition applies where a landlord has carried out any fire safety works to an applicable building in consequence of any provision, duty or guidance arising from—
(a) the Housing Act 2004;
(b) the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order) 2005;
(c) the Building Safety Act 2021;
(d) any direction, recommendation or suggestion of any public authority or regulatory body;
(e) such other circumstances or enactment as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations or in accordance with subsection (9), below.
(2) If the remediation costs condition is met, then the costs incurred by the landlord in connection with those matters may not be the subject of a demand for payment of service charges, administration charges or any other charge permitted or authorised by any provision of any long lease.
(3) Any demand for payment which contravenes this section shall be of no force or effect and will have no validity in law.
(4) Any covenant or agreement, whether contained in a lease or in an agreement collateral to such a lease, is void in so far as it purports to authorise any forfeiture or impose on the tenant any penalty, disability or obligation in the event of the tenant refusing, failing or declining to make a payment to which this section applies.
(5) The remediation costs condition applies to demands for payment before the landlord incurs the costs in the same way as it applies to demands for payment made after the costs have been incurred.
(6) The remediation costs condition does not apply where the landlord is a company in which the majority of the shares are held by leaseholders or where the landlord is an RTM company.
(7) Within six months of the day on which this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must create an agency referred to as the Building Works Agency.
(8) The purpose of the Building Works Agency shall be to administer a programme of cladding remediation and other building safety works, including—
(a) overseeing an audit of cladding, insulation and other building safety issues in buildings over two storeys;
(b) prioritising audited buildings for remediation based on risk;
(c) determining the granting or refusal of grant funding for cladding remediation work;
(d) monitoring progress of remediation work and enforce remediation work where appropriate;
(e) determining buildings to be safe once remediation work has been completed;
(f) seeking to recover costs of remediation where appropriate from responsible parties; and
(g) providing support, information and advice for owners of buildings during the remediation process.
(9) The Building Works Agency shall also have power to recommend that the Secretary of State exercises his power under clause (1)(e) in such terms and to such extent that it sees fit. If such a recommendation is made, the Secretary of State must, within 28 days, either—
(a) accept it and exercise the power under clause 1(e) within 28 days of acceptance; or
(b) reject it and, within 28 days of rejection, lay before Parliament a report setting out the reasons for rejection.
(10) In this section—
(a) “fire safety works” means any work or service carried out for the purpose of eradicating or mitigating (whether permanently or temporarily) any risk associated with the spread of fire, the structural integrity of the building or the ability of people to evacuate the building;
(b) “applicable building” means a building subject to one or more long leases on the day on which section comes into force;
(c) “service charge” has the meaning given by s.18, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;
(d) “administration charge” has the meaning given by Schedule 11, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
(e) “long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;
(f) “RTM company” has the meaning given by section 113 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
(11) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’—(Matthew Pennycook.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 301.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 128 - Limitation periods

Amendments made: 41,page136,line8, at end insert—
“(4) Where by virtue of section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 a person became entitled, before the commencement date, to bring an action against any other person, this section applies in relation to the action as if the reference in subsection (1) to 15 years were a reference to 30 years.
(5) In subsection (4) ‘the commencement date’ means the day on which section 128 of the Building Safety Act 2022 came into force.”
This amendment provides for a 30 year limitation period (rather than a 15 year period) for actions brought by virtue of section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, where the right of action accrued before the commencement of the clause.
Amendment 42,page136,line15, leave out from ‘where’ to end of line 16 and insert “—
(a) by virtue of section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 a person became entitled, before the day on which this section came into force, to bring an action against any other person, and
(b) the period of 30 years from the date on which the right of action accrued expires in the initial period,
section 4B of the Limitation Act 1980 (inserted by subsection (1))”.
This amendment provides that where the 30 year limitation period (see Amendment 41) would otherwise expire in the initial period, it expires at the end of the initial period.
Amendment 43, page136,line29, leave out “90 days” and insert “one year”.
This amendment changes the initial period. Subsection (4) provides that where the time limit for bringing an action by virtue of section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 would otherwise expire in the initial period, it expires at the end of that period.

Clause 129 - Establishment of the new homes ombudsman scheme

Amendments made: 44, page136,line33 leave out “for England”.
This amendment (together with others) is to expand the scope of the new homes ombudsman scheme beyond England so it applies also to Wales and Scotland.
Amendment 45,page137,line11, at end insert—
“(4) Before making arrangements under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers before making arrangements to establish the new homes ombudsman scheme.

Clause 130 - The new homes ombudsman scheme

Amendments made: 46,page137,line20, leave out “in England”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47,page137,line32, leave out
“against members of the scheme”.
This amendment expands the meaning of “redress scheme” so it is not limited to schemes which have members.
Amendment 48,in page137,line35, at end insert—
“(8) Schedule (Amendments in connection with the new homes ombudsman scheme) contains amendments connected with the establishment of the new homes ombudsman scheme.”
This amendment introduces a Schedule containing amendments of other enactments (see NS2).

Clause 131 - “Relevant owner”, “new build home” and “developer”

Amendments made: 49, page138,line8, at end insert—
“(3A) In relation to a home in Scotland, subsection (3) has effect as if in paragraph (b) the words ‘for a term not exceeding 21 years’ were omitted.”
This amendment glosses the meaning of the “occupation condition” for homes in Scotland.
Amendment 50,page138,line21, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) ‘Relevant interest’ means—
(a) in relation to land in England or Wales, a legal estate which is—
(i) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, or
(ii) a term of years absolute granted for a term of more than 21 years from the date of the grant;
(b) in relation to land in Scotland, the interest of an owner of land.”
This amendment provides the meaning of the “relevant interest” for Wales and Scotland (and is needed as a consequence of the new homes ombudsman scheme being expanded beyond England).
Amendment 51, page138,line27, leave out “in England”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 52, page138,line29, leave out “in England”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 53, page138,line31, leave out “in England”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 54, page138,line36, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant national authority”.
This amendment, taken with Amendment 55, confers power on the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers (in addition to the Secretary of State) to adjust the meaning of “developer”.
Amendment 55,page138,line40, at end insert—
“(7A) In subsection (6)(b), ‘the relevant national authority’ means—
(a) in relation to homes in England, the Secretary of State,
(b) in relation to homes in Wales, the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) in relation to homes in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers.
(7B) Before making regulations under subsection (6)(b), the relevant national authority must consult each other person who is the relevant national authority in relation to regulations under that subsection.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 54.

Clause 132 - Power to require persons to join scheme and to provide information

Amendment made: 56, page139,line19, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, and
(b) the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers before making regulations about the new homes ombudsman scheme.

Clause 134 - Developers’ code of practice

Amendment made: 57, page140,line13, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers before—
(a) issuing, revising or replacing the code, or
(b) approving the code or a revision or replacement of it.”
This amendment places the Secretary of State under a duty to consult the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers about the code of practice.

Clause 138 - Power of Architects Registration Board to charge fees

Amendment made: 58, page145,line27, at end insert—
“(2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (the Board and its committees), in paragraph 18(2)(b) (functions of the Board which may not be discharged by a committee) for ‘4(1) or (2)’ substitute ‘4(2)’.
(3) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (2), in section 11(5) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 for the words from ‘after’ to the end substitute ‘for “4(2)” substitute “4(1A) or (2)”’.”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This amendment amends paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 1 to the Architects Act 1997 so as to remove the current restriction on committees discharging a function of the Architects Registration Board under section 4(1) of that Act.

New Schedule 2 - Amendments in connection with the new homes ombudsman scheme

“1 The Local Government Act 1974 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 4.
2 (1) Section 33 (consultation between Local Commissioner and other Commissioners and Ombudsmen) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after paragraph (bza) insert—
‘(bzb) by the new homes ombudsman under the new homes ombudsman scheme (see section 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022),’;
(b) in the words after paragraph (c), after ‘1993’ insert ‘, the Housing Act 1996, the new homes ombudsman scheme’.
(3) In subsection (2), after ‘housing ombudsman,’ insert ‘the new homes ombudsman,’.
(4) After subsection (3A) insert—
‘(3B) If at any stage in the course of conducting an investigation under the new homes ombudsman scheme, the new homes ombudsman forms the opinion that the complaint relates partly to a matter which could be the subject of an investigation under this Part of this Act, the new homes ombudsman must consult with the appropriate Local Commissioner about the complaint and, if the new homes ombudsman considers it necessary, inform the person initiating the complaint of the steps necessary to initiate a complaint under this Part of this Act.’
(5) In subsection (4)—
(a) for ‘or (3A)’ substitute ‘, (3A) or (3B)’;
(b) for ‘or under the Housing Act 1996’ substitute ‘, the Housing Act 1996 or the new homes ombudsman scheme’.
3 (1) Section 33ZA (collaborative working between Local Commissioners and others) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (b) omit the final ‘or’;
(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert ‘or
(d) the new homes ombudsman,’.
(3) In subsection (1A) for ‘or (c)’ substitute ‘, (c) or (d)’.
(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (b) omit the final ‘or’;
(b) at the end of paragraph (c) insert ‘or
(d) the new homes ombudsman,’;
(c) in the words following paragraph (c) for ‘or (c)’ substitute ‘, (c) or (d)’.
4 In section 33ZB (arrangements for provision of administrative and other services), in subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (c) omit the final ‘and’;
(b) at the end of paragraph (d) insert—
‘(e) the new homes ombudsman, and
(f) the person maintaining the new homes ombudsman scheme under arrangements made pursuant to section 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022.’
5 (1) Paragraph 10A of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1996 (housing complaints: collaborative working with Local Commissioners) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) after ‘Local Commissioner’ insert ‘or the new homes ombudsman’;
(b) for ‘the ombudsman’ substitute ‘the housing ombudsman’;
(c) at the end insert ‘, the new homes ombudsman or both of them.’
(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) after ‘Local Commissioner’ insert ‘or the new homes ombudsman’;
(b) for ‘the ombudsman’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘the housing ombudsman’;
(c) at the end insert ‘, the new homes ombudsman or both of them.’
(4) In sub-paragraph (4)—
(a) after ‘Local Commissioner’ insert ‘, the new homes ombudsman (or both)’;
(b) at the end insert ‘(or those persons)’.
6 (1) The Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 3) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 65(7) (consultation and co-operation with other ombudsmen)—
(a) in the Welsh language text, after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(f) yr ombwdsmon cartrefi newydd o dan y cynllun ombwdsmon cartrefi newydd (gweler adran 129 o Ddeddf Diogelwch Adeiladau 2022).’;
(b) in the English language text, after paragraph (e) insert—
‘(f) the new homes ombudsman under the new homes ombudsman scheme (see section 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022).’”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This new schedule contains amendments to other legislation needed as a result of the establishment of the new homes ombudsman scheme.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 8 - The new homes ombudsman scheme

Amendments made: 71, page203,line15, after “include” insert
“provision about co-operation with persons who exercise functions under other redress schemes and, in particular,”.
This amendment makes it clear that the scheme may include provision about co-operation between the new homes ombudsman scheme and other redress schemes.
Amendment 72, page203,line25, at end insert
“, the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers.”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This ensures that the new homes ombudsman scheme includes provision for the provision of information to the Welsh Ministers and the Scottish Ministers as well as to the Secretary of State.

New Clause 19 - Special Measures

“Schedule (Special measures) provides for the appointment of a special measures manager, to undertake duties under this Part in place of an accountable person, and makes further provision in connection with that appointment.”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This new clause introduces NS1 and is intended to be inserted before clause 104.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Pincher: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Review of payment practices and building safety—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the day on which this Act is passed, establish a review of the effects of construction industry payment practices on building safety in general and on safety in high-risk buildings in particular.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider—
(a) the extent to the structure of the construction market incentivises procurement with building safety in mind,
(b) the extent to which contract terms and payment practices (for example, retentions) can drive poor behaviours, including the prioritisation of speed and low cost solutions and affect building safety by placing financial strain on supply chain,
(c) the effects on building safety of other matters raised in Chapter 9 (procurement and supply) of Building a Safer Future, the final report of the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, published in May 2018 (Cm 9607),
(d) the adequacy for the purposes of promoting building safety of the existing legislative, regulatory and policy regime governing payment practices in construction, including the provisions of Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, and
(e) recommendations for legislative, regulatory or policy change.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the findings of the review before Parliament no later than one year after this Act comes into force.”
This new clause would put an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the effects of construction industry payment on practices on building safety and to report the findings to Parliament.
New clause 2—Building regulations: property protection—
“(1) The Building Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (Power to make building regulations), after subsection (1)(f), insert—
‘(g) furthering the protection of property’.
(3) In Schedule 1 (Building Regulations), in paragraph 8(5A)—
(a) after ‘1(1)(a)’ insert ‘(d), (e) and (g)’;
(b) after ‘flooding’ insert ‘and fire’.”
This new clause would add “furthering the protection of property” to the list of purposes for which building regulations may be made under the Buildings Act 1984, and extends the purposes for which persons carrying out works on a building may be required to do things to improve building resilience.
New clause 15—Duty of social landlords to undertake electrical safety inspections—
“(1) A social landlord of a residential dwelling in a high-rise building must—
(a) hold a valid Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) for that dwelling;
(b) provide to the tenant of the dwelling, including any new such tenant—
(i) a copy of that EICR, and
(ii) a document explaining the provisions of this Act;
(c) handle any valid complaint about the safety of the electrical installations of the dwelling in accordance with subsection (5).
(2) A person who fails to comply with a duty under subsection (1) commits an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.
(4) A complaint is valid if—
(a) it relates to the safety of the electrical installations of the dwelling;
(b) it is made in writing by, or on behalf of, the tenant of the dwelling; and
(c) it is not frivolous or vexatious.
(5) The landlord must investigate any valid complaint within 28 days of receiving that complaint.
(6) If such an investigation shows that the electrical installations are unsafe, the landlord must rectify the situation using a qualified and competent person within 28 days of the completion of the investigation.
(7) If the landlord believes that a complaint is not valid they must write to the tenant within 28 days of receiving that complaint explaining why they do not think it is valid.
(8) In this section—
a ‘valid Electrical Installation Condition Report’—
(a) is dated within the last five years;
(b) covers the whole fixed electrical installation of the dwelling;
(c) has a satisfactory outcome;
(d) was completed by a qualified and competent person; and
(e) is based on the model forms in BS 7671 or equivalent;
‘social landlord’ has the same meaning as in section 219 of the Housing Act 1996.”
This new clause requires social landlords to ensure the safety of electrical installations in high rise buildings and is intended to reduce risk of spread of fires between flats.
New clause 16—Duty of leaseholders to undertake electrical safety inspections—
“(1) A leaseholder of a residential dwelling in a high-rise building must—
(a) hold a valid Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) for that dwelling; and
(b) provide a copy of that EICR to a person specified by the Secretary of State.
(2) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) shall—
(a) initially receive a written request from the specified person to provide the EICR; and
(b) if he or she fails to comply with such a written request, be liable to a civil penalty.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, nominate who the specified person shall be.
(4) In this section a ‘valid Electrical Installation Condition Report’—
(a) is dated within the last five years;
(b) covers the whole fixed electrical installation of the dwelling;
(c) has a satisfactory outcome;
(d) was completed by a qualified and competent person; and
(e) is based on the model forms in BS 7671 or equivalent.”
This new clause requires leaseholders to ensure the safety of electrical installations in high rise buildings and is intended to reduce risk of spread of fires between flats.
New clause 17—Staircase standards—
“The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, consult on regulations requiring staircases in all new build properties to comply with British Standard 5395-1.”
New clause 18—Property flood resilience—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of six months beginning on the day this Act is passed, use the power under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to make building regulations for the purpose in subsection (2).
(2) That purpose is to set minimum standards for the safety of new build public and private properties in England for—
(a) property flood resilience,
(b) flood mitigation, and
(c) waste management in connection with flooding.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish—
(a) a certification scheme for safety improvements to domestic and commercial properties in England made in full or in part for flood prevention or flood mitigation purposes, and
(b) an accreditation scheme for installers of such improvements.
(4) The scheme under subsection (3)(a) must—
(a) set minimum standards for the improvements, including that they are made by a person accredited under subsection (1)(b), and
(b) provide for the issuance of certificates for insurance and assurance purposes stating that improvements to properties have met those standards.
(5) The scheme under subsection (3)(a) may make provision for the certification of improvements that were made before the establishment of the scheme provided those improvements meet the minimum standards in subsection (4)(a).
(6) In setting minimum standards under subsection (4)(a) the Secretary of State must have regard to the minimum standards for new build properties under subsection (1).
(7) The Secretary of State and local authorities in England must take all reasonable steps to make data about flood prevention and risk relevant to building safety publicly available.
(8) The duty under subsection (1) extends to seeking to facilitate use of the data by—
(a) insurers for the purpose of accurately assessing risks to buildings, and
(b) individual property owners for the purpose of assessing the need for property flood resilience measures.”
This new clause would establish minimum standards for property flood resilience measures in new build properties and in improvements to existing building designed to increase safety protections for flood prevention and mitigation purposes, and require local and national government to make data available to support this.
New clause 23—Building control: independent appointment—
“In section 47 of the Building Act 1984 (giving and acceptance of initial notice), in subsection (1)(a) after ‘approved inspector’, insert ‘who has been chosen by a system of independent appointment, prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.’”
This new clause, along with Amendment 73, is intended to remove choice of building control body from those carrying out all building work.
New clause 24—Building Safety and Local Authorities—
“(1) The duties performed by the regulator under section 31 of this Act in respect of relevant buildings must be performed by the local authority that exercises building control functions in the area in which the building is located.
(2) In this section ‘relevant building’ means a building—
(a) under 18 metres in height, and
(b) comprising more than one dwelling.”
New clause 25—Building Safety Regulations for multi-occupancy dwellings—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations amend paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Building Act 1984 to apply to all buildings that comprise more than one dwelling.”
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(aa) furthering the protection of property, and”.
This amendment would require the building safety regulator to exercise its functions with a view to furthering the protection of property, which is intended promote longer term protections for occupant safety and reducing fire damage and cost.
Amendment 74, in clause 30, page 18, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the ability of residents to evacuate a building, taking into account the vulnerability of residents and the number of means of egress.”
This amendment is intended to ensure the Secretary of State has regard to the ability of residents to evacuate a building when revising the definition of higher-risk building.
Amendment 73, page 60, line 7 leave out clause 45.
This amendment, along with NC23, is intended to remove choice of building control body for those carrying out all building work.
Amendment 75, in clause 57, page 79, line 23, at end insert—
“(5) The regulations must exempt any relevant application made by or on behalf of a registered social landlord for the provision of social housing as defined under section 68 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.
(6) A ‘relevant application’ under subsection (5) means an application of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
Government amendments 11 to 40.
Government amendments 60 and 61.
Government amendments 63 and 64.
Government new schedule 1—Special measures.
Government amendment 70.

Christopher Pincher: I am happy to set out this group of new clauses and amendments that I hope will be non-contentious as they relate to special measures.
Let me briefly remind the House that special measures orders are a last-resort regulatory intervention that will be invoked if there has been a serious failure or multiple failures by the accountable person to meet their duties under part 4 of the Bill. The new clauses and amendments, beginning with new clause 19, provide for the special measures regime to operate in high-risk buildings across all housing tenures. They also ensure that a special measure order cannot be circumvented by a recalcitrant accountable person, including in respect of a situation in which an accountable person sells their interest in the building and tries to avoid being bound by the special measures order.
New clause 19 introduces new schedule 1, which will encompass the special measures provisions and replace clauses 104 to 113. I shall refer to the paragraphs in the schedule as I address the House. Proposed new paragraph 9 is a new provision that provides for a financial management proposal. This will detail how the accountable person will fund the relevant building safety expenses across both leasehold and rented buildings that are subject to special measures. The financial management proposal sets out the estimated expenses, the measures that they will fund and the special measures manager will undertake, and the apportionment of payments if there is more than one accountable person.
Proposed new paragraph 10(3)(b) ensures that for commonhold buildings a special measures manager may carry out the functions of a receiver of commonhold building safety assessments. This aligns with the provisions on the building safety charge and ensures that the manager is remunerated and can carry out their functions for such a tenure of building. Amendments 33 to 35 are supporting provisions for special measures in common-hold buildings.
Proposed new paragraph 12 is a new provision that ensures financial propriety and provides that any payments received by a manager further to the proposal are deposited into an account to be held on trust. Proposed new paragraph 16 gives power to the Building Safety Regulator to provide financial assistance to the special measures manager to enable it to carry out its functions.
Proposed new paragraph 18 provides for a proactive regulator who will review key aspects under the special measures order and, where necessary, apply to vary the order if the regulator considers that any of the functions or terms require amendment.
Proposed new paragraphs 20(7) to 20(9) provide that on the discharge of a special measures order, the tribunal must direct the special measures manager to prepare a reconciliation of those accounts held on trust and may direct final payments from the manager or accountable persons as appropriate.
Proposed new paragraph 22 creates provisions that ensure that while it is in force the terms of a special measures order will be binding against an incoming accountable person, while the outgoing accountable person remains liable for any contraventions under the order and any debts that may have been incurred prior to the transfer of ownership.
A swathe of Government amendments—Nos. 11, 12, 16 to 28, 31 and 32, 36, 40, 61, 63 and 70—are consequential amendments that make changes relating to special measures due to the provisions now appearing in new schedule 1. Amendments 33 to 35 provide for changes to provisions to ensure that special measures operate effectively for commonhold, high-risk buildings. Together, these amendments and new provisions will ensure that a special measures intervention will operate effectively across buildings, regardless of tenure.
Amendments 14 and 15 are, again, minor technical changes to the process of registration of high-risk buildings. Amendment 14 simply clarifies the meaning of registration, while amendment 15 makes it clear that the building safety regulator has the powers to update the register of high-risk buildings beyond the initial registration application. The amendment will therefore make sure that the register is kept up to date and is fit for purpose. Amendments 29 and 30 are on the protection from forfeiture and amend clause 122. They amend it so that leaseholders can be assured that they have the same protections against forfeiture of a lease as those that already exist in relation to the service charge. They are consequential amendments that ensure that statutory protections against forfeiture apply to relevant leases where there is a requirement to pay a building safety charge. We want the same procedural rights to apply to the building safety charge regime as apply to the service charge. The amendment extends service charge protections for leaseholders who default on payments or challenge the reasonableness of a charge to the building safety charge.
Finally, the Government have tabled another small batch of minor or technical amendments that are either consequential to other changes or correct clauses in the Bill. Four technical amendments are consequential to amendment 1, which I introduced earlier, relating to the new homes ombudsman. Amendments 59 and 62 remove the regulation-making power to add the description of “developer” for the purposes of the new homes ombudsman provisions from the scope of the general provision  about powers to make regulations. This is because new clause 20, in respect of the regulations, means that we can ensure that Scottish and Welsh Ministers, as well as the Secretary of State, have bespoke powers. Amendments 66 and 67 adjust the territorial extent of the provisions about the new homes ombudsman scheme now that that the scheme will operate across Great Britain, and territorial extent issues are also dealt with in new schedule 2, which contains a consequential amendment related to the new homes ombudsman. [Interruption.]
Finally, I heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has not yet risen—

Bob Stewart: rose—

Christopher Pincher: He has risen—I am doing your work for you, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I will give way to him.

Bob Stewart: I thank my very good friend for being so nice to me—decent of him. In sum, all these special measures are devices to ensure that, once people are identified as culpable to fix the problem, they are pinged and have to do it. Is that correct?

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. and gallant Friend, as ever, is on or near the money. The point of the changes is to make sure that the accountable person is indeed accountable, so they do what it says on the tin.
Amendment 13 makes it clear in the Bill that an accountable person who allows occupation of a single residential unit or more in part of a higher risk building, as defined in clause 62, without a relevant completion certificate has committed a summary offence, and the guilty person is liable for conviction up to a maximum summary term. Amendment 60 allows regulations made under clause 71 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clause 71 sets out the parameters of the part of the building for which an accountable person is responsible. Amendment 64 provides that the consequential amendments in schedule 5 relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967—an Act we all know well—and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 extend to all of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendment 68 provides that clause 127 is automatically commenced two months after Royal Assent.
The amendments, while hardly scintillating, will help to improve the Bill and make it ready for scrutiny by our colleagues in the other place. I trust that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members have listened closely, with care and attention, have absorbed all the points I have made, and that they will support the amendments.

Nigel Evans: Before I call Matthew Pennycook, I ask colleagues who are trying to catch my eye that they please make sure that they address the new clauses and amendments in the group before us, not those in the previous group.

Matthew Pennycook: Scintillating they may not be, but it is still a pleasure to respond for the Opposition to the remaining proceedings on consideration. I will first deal briefly with several of the non-Government amendments selected, before taking the opportunity to ask the Minister several specific questions relating to  Government new clause 19, new schedule 1 and various other amendments relating to special measures and protections against forfeiture. I hope he is able to answer at least some of them.
New clause 1, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who sadly cannot be in her place today because she has contracted covid, is a straightforward amendment that would place on the Secretary of State an obligation to review the effects of behaviour in the construction industry that have a negative impact on building safety, such as contract terms and payment practices that prioritise speed and low-cost solutions, and to report findings to this House. We support the new clause fully and urge the Government to give it due consideration.
New clause 18, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), would establish minimum standards for property flood resilience measures in new-build homes. In response to my hon. Friend last week, the Secretary of State made it clear that “more could be done” on this issue. I hope my hon. Friend gets a chance to make her case in more detail in due course, and that the Minister will give serious consideration to her new clause and to what might be done through future planning legislation to drive up standards when it comes to flood mitigation and resilience.
New clause 15, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), would extent the electrical safety inspection duties that currently apply in the private sector to social landlords. It is straightforward and we believe it warrants support.
New clause 16 would extend the same duties to leaseholders. Although we do not want extra burdens to be placed on leaseholder-occupiers—those who sub-let are of course required to have the relevant certification anyway—and we do want further assurances that the provision would not duplicate powers and duties that the Bill confers on the building safety manager, we support in principle steps to ensure the safety of electrical installations in high-rise buildings and to reduce the risk of fire spreading between flats.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is a logical and fair man, and he will appreciate that there is an anomaly here. If a leaseholder rents out their property, as we have heard some are forced to do, they will be a private landlord and will be obliged to carry out these checks, but they will not be if they are living in the property themselves. In the name of safety, there has to be consistency. Not only landlords of high-rise blocks but social landlords and resident leaseholders need to do this, and the cost is estimated to be about £30 a year per flat.

Matthew Pennycook: I agree there is an anomaly, and I agree that we need consistency. I very much hope the Government give further thought to what might be done to achieve that objective.
The Opposition support new clause 23 and amendments 73 and 74, which derive from the Select Committee’s recommendations, and I hope the Minister will constructively respond to them in due course.
On Government new clause 19 and new schedule 1, which will replace clauses 104 to 113, and various related amendments, we fully accept the need for special measures in cases where a given accountable person fails to discharge their duties under the new regime, including the appointment via an order secured by the regulator at the first-tier tribunal of a special measures manager who will take on the management of risk in a given building in such instances.
We also support the changes made to the special measures arrangements by new schedule 1, such as the change to enable the regulator to provide financial assistance to the special measures manager by way of loans or grants. However, we would be grateful if the Minister provided some clarification on those parts of the new schedule that allow for payments to be made by the accountable person to the special measures manager if expenses exceed what can be raised by way of the building safety charge. Will he give a commitment this afternoon that those additional payments will not be able to be charged to leaseholders?
Building height was debated extensively in Committee and warrants a brief mention in relation to this group of Government amendments, because the Bill’s arrangements for special measures still apply only to higher-risk buildings, defined as those of at least 18 metres in height or of at least seven storeys—I note that new clauses 24 and 25, in the name of the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), directly address this.
Eighteen metres has always been a crude and arbitrary threshold that fails adequately to reflect the complexity of fire risk. It is absolutely right and long overdue that the Government made it clear last week that 18 metres will no longer be the difference between whether an affected leaseholder is protected by the state from the costs of remediation or made to take on a forced loan and long-term debt, although leaseholders will still face ruinous costs for the remediation of buildings under 11 metres. That requirement will not be entirely resolved by the withdrawal of the January 2020 consolidated advice note, and we urge the Minister to ensure those people are also protected financially.
Leaving aside whether a more proportionate approach to fire safety risk results in a reduction in the number of medium-rise buildings that ultimately require remedial works, many of them will clearly remain designated as high risk and will therefore require remediation. Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention eventually to bring high-risk buildings under 18 metres into the purview of the regulator and the gateway system once the regime has been given a chance to bed in and deal with the most complex high-rise cases?
Lastly, amendment 29 will extend existing protections against forfeiture of a lease on the ground of non-payment of a service charge to non-payment of a building safety charge. We do not oppose this amendment as it rebalances, even if only marginally, the disparity in power between a landlord and leaseholder when it comes to the building safety charge. This directly relates to our previous debate on part 5. No provisions prohibiting forfeiture would be necessary if the House had accepted any amendment, whether it be new clause 3, new clause 13 or potential forthcoming Government amendments, that provides sufficiently robust legal protection for leaseholders in all circumstances.
The difficulty of considering amendments on Report when other amendments that are likely to have a direct bearing on their operation, were they to be accepted, have not yet been tabled is that, if no amendments are made to provide legal protection for leaseholders against the costs of remediating historical defects, we would be concerned that amendment 29 could inadvertently incentivise freeholders to sue for unpaid building safety charges. I therefore ask the Minister and his officials to consider revising the amendment to make it clear that failure to pay a building safety charge can never be used as a basis for forfeiture, rather than merely regulating the process by which forfeiture takes place, as the amendment does in its present form.

Peter Aldous: New clause 2 and amendment 1, which stand in my name and are kindly supported by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), add “the protection of property” to the list of purposes for which building regulations may be made under the Building Act 1984, and require the Building Safety Regulator to carry out its work
“with a view to furthering the protection of property”.
In many respects, in terms of drafting, these are tweaks to the Bill, but they could have far-reaching and positive consequences. Modern methods of construction and the increasing compartmental sizes of industrial and commercial buildings are leading to more challenging and larger fires, which put lives at risk and also cause enormous social, economic and environmental consequential damage. That is exactly what happened at Wessex Foods in Lowestoft 11 years ago, in July 2011. If adequate property protection measures—in the form of sprinklers, in that instance—had been in place, a huge amount of disruption would have been avoided, and the firefighters would have been back at their station in four minutes.
If the consideration of “property protection” were added to the Building Act and the building regulations, we would secure a significant double dividend: greater safety for people, including firefighters, and more sustainable buildings. It is far better to be preventing fires than to be putting them out. I should therefore be grateful if the Minister gave serious consideration to accepting new clause 2 and amendment 1, so that the Building Act can be amended to provide for the protection of property. These proposals have the support of professionals across the fire sector: the National Fire Chiefs Council, the Fire Sector Federation, the Fire Brigades Union, the Fire Protection Association and the Institution of Fire Engineers.
The new clause and amendment would provide an appropriate framework for the future fire safety of building design, and we would therefore know that homes, schools, care homes, student accommodation and all industrial and commercial buildings had adequate property protection and fire prevention measures built in at the start, so that we were not putting people—including firefighters—and property at risk. As I have said, I should be grateful if the Minister considered these proposals.

Daisy Cooper: I will speak very briefly about amendment 75 and new clauses 24 and 25, all of which stand in my name and are supported by the Local Government Association.
Amendment 75 is pretty straightforward. At present, the Bill lacks clarity in relation to social housing providers. This amendment to clause 57 would make registered social landlords exempt from the additional financial burden of the building safety levy. I think it unacceptable that council and housing association tenants have to subsidise the failures of private developers under this scheme.
The purpose of the two new clauses, taken together, is to introduce a more stringent building safety framework that would apply to multiple dwellings under 18 metres in height as well as those above. We have already heard from hon. Members about how crude the 18-metre cut-off is and how it has no basis. Indeed, many of us remember seeing a leaked video of an adviser to the Government saying that that figure had been plucked out of the air.
These two new clauses, taken together, would prevent having a two-tier building safety regime. I ask the Minister to respond to the amendment and the new clauses to see whether the Government might be willing to adopt them all during the passage of the Bill.

Paul Maynard: I rise to speak to new clause 17, which stands in my name.
The Minister, probably more than anybody else in this Parliament, already knows that I have a tendency to fall over. Because I am teetotal, this is not down to drink either. Indeed, I suspect that every single Member here will know someone—a friend, a loved one or a relative—who has had a fall on the stairs. They are a silent killer and claim the lives of over 700 people every year, as well as thousands more who suffer injuries and lose their independence.
Finding a solution to the issue of flammable cladding has proven fiendishly complex, as we know from our time here, but for staircase safety it should be, and indeed is, simple. A British standard already exists that reduces falls by a staggering 60%: British Standard 5395-1. It means that stairs must have a minimum size of “going”—the horizontal surface on which one treads—and a maximum rise in height limiting steepness and providing enough surface area on which to step. Provision of easy-reach handrails is also required for staircases to be compliant. While such staircases hardly look different at all to the naked eye, their impact on preventing falls is remarkable.
British Standard 5395-1 has been in place since 2010 but never enshrined in law as a requirement, so today I am proposing this new clause, alongside the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for whose support I am most grateful. This is the result of ardent campaigning by the UK’s leading accident prevention charity, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but also, crucially, major players in the housing industry such as the Berkeley Group. Industry wants this regulation. It wants a level playing field where there is one simple rule for all to adhere to. Because I am only calling for the standard to be applied to new-builds, there will be negligible cost and no need for retrofitting.
I can almost hear what the Minister is about to tell me—that it is uncommon to use primary legislation to enshrine such a standard into law. The Government will argue that our focus should be outcome-based rather  than legislating on method, but I might point to regulation 7 of the building regulations, on combustible materials, which is in itself descriptive and sets out how the industry must achieve that particular regulation. If the outcome that we are all aiming for is safety of stairs, then the status quo is simply not working, and hundreds of people are dying every year from something that could so easily be prevented: I refer back to the 60% figure. If the Government have some other way to achieve such a reduction in preventable death in the home, then I am all ears, as many people have often pointed out to me. Independent safety campaigners such as RoSPA are confident from the statistics that this simple measure will save more lives than perhaps anything else in the entire Bill.
Genuine low-hanging fruit does not come along very often in politics, and I would like the Minister to grasp it when he sees it. He may not wish to satisfy me by granting me the agreement of the Government to the new clause. He has spent many years working on this with me trying to keep me satisfied and happy, but failed. Now he has his chance to redeem himself after 12 months of horror. Will he at least agree to meet me to discuss how we can take this matter forward? He can make my day by saying, yes, the Government agree. He can give me a minute of happiness and take forward Conservative party harmony, so rare these days, just by agreeing to meet me. I look forward to hearing what he might just have to say.

Nigel Evans: Just a minute of happiness—very good.

Andrew Slaughter: I will speak briefly to new clauses 15 and 16, which are in my name and which relate to electrical safety. They seek to extend the requirement for five-yearly checks on electrical equipment to resident leaseholders and to social landlords, where these already apply and in fact apply more widely than just to high-rise residential buildings and private landlords.
We have quite rightly spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about the effects on leaseholders, and we have strayed into other territory and exposed other deficiencies in the Bill in relation to the requirements for social landlords and tenants, what types of building are covered and, indeed, as we heard from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), how certain types of buildings now being constructed are still being constructed with many of those faults.
What all of those have in common is that they are about the spread of fire, and these new clauses are not about that, but about the cause of fire, which I suggest we should also pay attention to. The Grenfell fire was caused by an electrical fault in a fridge-freezer. Less than a year before Grenfell, in August 2016, there was a very serious fire, less than 1 mile from where Grenfell Tower stands, at Shepherd’s Court—an 18-storey block—in my constituency. That was caused by an unsafe Indesit washer-dryer. Some 5.5 million of that particular type of faulty washer-dryer were manufactured, and hundreds if not thousands of fires across the country, some obviously in high-rise buildings, have been caused by that. The New York fire just a week or so ago was caused by an electrical heater.
Lakanal House, Shirley Towers, New Providence Wharf—almost every one of the notorious recent fires in high-rise blocks have been caused by electrical faults, and they are increasing. In the last year, there were just over 350 fires caused by electrical ignition in high-rise residential blocks, which compares with about 300 five years ago. The fear always used to be of gas—going back to Ronan Point—with a gas explosion or fire, but in fact six times as many fires are caused by electricity as by gas. Indeed, over half—53%—of all accidental dwelling fires are caused by electrical sources of ignition.
It is entirely anomalous that whereas a private landlord quite rightly has to ensure the safety of electrical appliances, a private residential owner or social landlord does not, yet the Government’s own social housing White Paper said that the standards—this is clearly pretty much common sense—should be as good for social housing as they are for private housing in this respect.
I would like to get the Government’s support, as I have had the support—almost total support—of my own Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), on these matters today. He was a little grudging on my second new clause, but I will live with that. I hope that if the Government will not support the new clauses today, and I do not intend to push them to a vote, they will at least positively respond, and go away and think about how we are going to do this. It is entirely anomalous in a single block of flats with different types of tenures for some flats to be subject to greater rigours, and this applies not only to electrical safety but to fitting sprinklers, compartmentalisation and alterations to properties.
If we are going to take seriously the issue of preventing fires, given the devastating consequences that can result from them in high-rise blocks, we will have to make sure there is a level playing field, and that we equally address the problems concerning social housing and leaseholder-owned property as those concerning private rental.

Emma Hardy: I rise to speak in favour of new clause 18. This amendment seeks to tackle the Government’s currently laissez-faire approach to flood protection, which are known as property flood resilience measures, by introducing minimum national flood protection standards in new builds.
The reasoning behind this amendment is the inevitable change to our climate and the fact that we are going to see more flooding in this country, and it feels as though our legislation is not keeping up with the reality we all face. As the shadow spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), said, the Secretary of State did acknowledge in his response to me on the statement that “more could be done”. Therefore, I really do hope that the Government go away, have a look at the amendment I am putting forward, and consider how we can increase flood protections as part of building safety.
Currently, local authority planning departments can choose what property flood resilience measures they introduce as part of their pre-commencement conditions. In reality, that means that adjacent local authorities have different requirements for property flood resilience, flood mitigation and water management measures, even if they are rated in the same flood zone. In Hull, we have very strict flood resilience measures, as the House  can imagine—we are an area that floods—but if the surrounding local authorities are not as strict on flood mitigation, we end up with the flood water from those areas, which creates more of a problem for an area such as Hull. That is why we are talking about having the same level right across the country. Even if a part of the country does not flood at all, the new clause seeks to ensure that they still need to take flooding seriously because if they do not, it will lead to problems upstream for somebody else—excuse the pun.
The new clause would also address the lack of clarity about effective PFR measures by looking at a proper accreditation scheme, which would include installers. In the same way that we have gas safety certificates and other safety measures, as well as energy efficiency ratings that are set and established and which everybody understands, the new clause would do the same thing on flooding so that people know they get a certain standard of flood protection in their property and in new builds.
In 2021, Flood Re proposed that lower premiums should be offered on policies where property flood resilience measures have been installed, but the insurance industry says that the lack of standards and proven efficacy makes it very difficult to assess premiums. If the new clause introduced standardisation and a certain standard was set, people could say to insurance companies, “This property has reached a certain standard, so there should be some reflection of that in the premium you’re offering.” This proposal is about looking at a certification scheme.
To further help insurers and the public, the new clause would create a requirement that all the relevant available data held by bodies such as the Environment Agency and local authorities on flood mitigation measures should be made publicly available. This is about trying to make premiums cheaper for people. Insurers purchase flood mapping data to aid them in setting premiums, and the better information they have, the more accurate their insurance premiums will be. At the moment, as I am sure the Minister knows, householders in some parts of the country cannot get any flood insurance if their property has been built after 2009. This proposal attempts to address that issue as well.
Climate change is causing heavier and more frequent flooding, and we currently have 6.3 million homes in the UK at risk of flooding, without any property flood resilience measures. That should be a cause for extreme concern, yet the Government are failing to address it and, in fact, flooding is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. It is irresponsible and reckless to allow new builds to continue to be built in this country without really strong property flood resilience measures, because we need our homes to be fit for the future. Without positive action from the Government, tens of thousands more homes will be built without the protection they need. This is another housing scandal in the making, so I urge the Minister to go away and look at improving provisions on flooding as part of this Bill.

Nigel Evans: I call Clive Betts, who has tabled amendment 73 and 74.

Clive Betts: And new clause 23, but let me comment briefly on two other new clauses. New clause 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), is about safety on stairs and ensuring that stairs built in new properties conform  to British standards. He is absolutely right and I have put my name to the new clause. Each year, 300,000 people are admitted to A&E because of falls on stairs. That is a staggering figure and anything that we can do to reduce that has to be considered. This proposal is not a difficult one; as he said, it should be easy to implement and cost-free because it would be in new properties. Making sure that the stairs are wide enough and have proper handrails is not rocket science, and I hope that the Minister might indicate agreement on that in future, even if he cannot agree to the new clause today.
I just want to make it clear that nothing I am saying here is meant to try to improve harmony in the Conservative party—that is not something I want to be associated with, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys indicated. However, I am more than happy to have harmony with him in promoting new clause 17.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) is right that there should be similar standards for social tenants in social rented properties. The Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has an ongoing inquiry into the regulation of social housing, and if he could drop a note to the Committee as evidence so that we can take account of his proposals, that would be useful.
I turn to new clause 23 and amendment 73 in my name, which reflect what the Select Committee has looked at. Building control has come up as an issue as a result of the Hackitt review. Dame Judith Hackitt made it clear that two of her concerns about the construction industry were: the whole culture of the industry with its race to the bottom; and—this goes alongside that—conflicts of interest.
In the previous debate, I mentioned conflicts of interest on approvals for products in the industry, with suppliers hawking products around until they found someone—a friendly approver—who would approve them. Building control is the same—it is about the developer finding someone less likely to give them difficult scrutiny. The Government have addressed that for the highest-risk buildings, for which in future building control will be appointed by the regulator. However, for all other properties the developer can say, “Yes, I’ll have you to do my building control” or, “I won’t have you, because you gave me a difficult time with the last property I built.” That is not acceptable.
We need someone to approve a building who is independent of the developer. The Committee has gone on record on that several times, and we recommended it when we scrutinised the draft Bill. So far, the Minister has come back with, “The Government don’t agree.” I hope that at some point the Government will reconsider, because that seems to be a fundamental principle and something that will make all buildings safer in future. It would provide security for the owners, occupiers and tenants that their buildings have been approved by someone independent of the developer.

Kate Green: This is exactly the point. My constituents are deeply concerned as a result of some developers’ unscrupulous behaviour in appointing inspectors and building control approvers who they know will give them an easy ride. My hon. Friend may be familiar with the case of New Lawrence House in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), which has the same developer that turns  up often in my constituency. The issue was not that there was a definite intent to collude with the developer but that it was easier to turn a bit of a blind eye. Leaseholders in my constituency are worried about that real issue, so I strongly support his amendments.

Clive Betts: I am not aware of the particular scheme that my hon. Friend mentions, but unfortunately it is all too common that concerns are raised after the event about the quality of building control. It can sometimes be that an independent building control inspector approved a development, but all too often it is someone appointed by the developer, and that is not right. I am sure that the Minister will not have a conversion when he responds to the debate, but I hope that he might consider that this needs addressing in the future.
Let me turn to amendment 74, which is about the buildings in scope for the new regulatory regime. The Select Committee has been on the record as welcoming the Government’s approach to stronger regulation with the new Building Safety Regulator under the umbrella of the Health and Safety Executive. We supported all that, with one or two questions and reservations in our response on the draft Bill, but we said that the scope of that regulation should eventually be expanded to include other buildings. I think that the Government accept that in principle but do not want to lay down on the face of the Bill the other factors that might be taken into account to expand that scope of regulation at a future date.
My amendment seeks, as the Select Committee has recommended, to ensure that the requirement on residents’ ability to evacuate a building explicitly includes and takes into account their vulnerability, and that the number of means of egress is included on the face of the Bill. We recognise that the Government have gone a bit further with the new regulation, which now includes some hospitals and care residences, but we do not think it goes far enough.
In looking to the future—we recognise that the new regulator will have to move in a considered way, and it is important that the highest-risk buildings are considered first—we believe that, eventually, there ought to be a requirement to consider extending the scope of regulation. Where a building has within it vulnerable people, who will take longer to get out of the building in the event of a fire, or where the means of access and egress are limited—as in the proposal to build a 50-storey tower block with one means of fire escape, which fortunately was withdrawn the other day from a local planning committee—that factor ought to be taken into account when extending the scope of the new regulatory regime to other buildings in the future. Again, we are not saying it has to be done today or tomorrow; we are merely saying that that issue should inform future decisions about extending the scope of the new and important building safety regulatory regime. I would hope that the Government will eventually give approval to those approaches, if not today. We will not push the amendments to a vote, but at least we have put the issue back on the agenda for future consideration.

Apsana Begum: I rise to speak in support of amendment 73, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts),  and amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). The Bill renames “private approved inspectors” “building control approvers”. Not just amendment 73 has touched on the issue; other Members have done that through other new clauses and amendments. I wish to express my support for the Fire Brigades Union’s opposition to those private inspectors, which, as it argues, undermine professional local authority building control and weaken building safety regulation.
Amendment 1 is about the Building Safety Regulator. Again, I share the alarm expressed by the Fire Brigades Union that the Building Safety Regulator would be permitted to seek private sector involvement if the fire authority cannot assist. Surely it is obvious why private firms cannot be given licence to sign off on fire safety matters relating to higher-risk buildings. Fire safety is a matter for professional firefighters, not profiteers, and it is not clear how the new Building Regulations Advisory Committee will be constituted. I would be grateful if the Minister could say more about that.
Many of us would like to see the Government re-establish a statutory fire safety advisory body, with guaranteed representation for trade unions and residents. As the Bill progresses, I would like to see legislation and provision that apply to all residential buildings above 11 metres in height, an idea that has been echoed by Members of all parties. Any new regime should apply to other multi-occupancy institutional or residential buildings, which was also touched on in various amendments.
It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the Government have any plans to introduce a threshold height at which two staircases are required in order to provide means of both resident escape and firefighter entry. As he will no doubt be aware, concerns were raised that the plans for Ballymore’s proposed 51-storey development in Cuba Street in my constituency included only a single fire escape for a building that would have been two and half times the height of Grenfell tower.
Elsewhere in my constituency, the recent fire at Ballymore’s New Providence Wharf, where the fire spread between multiple floors and the ventilation system failed, led to smoke spreading throughout the building. That demonstrates the potential shortcomings of relying on stay put evacuation policies, so it would be helpful to know whether the Government have any plans to commit to addressing that in the Bill.

Andrew Slaughter: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done to draw wider attention to the Ballymore application, and indeed it has now been withdrawn. That is happening everywhere, however: on the border of my constituency, one over 50-storey block is already under construction and three others are in planning with, again, one staircase each. It is ridiculous to say that the stay put policy is the answer to that, because post Grenfell, people will not stay put and we understand exactly why.

Apsana Begum: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point strongly. I share his concern that there is too much of a free pass in that situation and such buildings should just not be allowed to be presented. On his point, the Cuba Street development has been withdrawn for now, but it is only paused. It will come back and there is no guarantee that all the problems will be addressed, so it would be helpful to know whether the  Government have any plans to address that issue and, if not, whether they will commit to a national independent review of stay put policies, particularly given that the Cuba Street proposal was allowed under existing building regulations.
At present, there are insufficient fire safety inspectors after decades of cuts and increased workloads. It is urgent that the fire and rescue service is properly funded and resourced, because people have a right to be safe in their own homes. The Bill is a small step forward, but it does not resolve the overall building safety crisis across the UK. In the words of the Fire Brigades Union, it is at best
“a sticking plaster over a gaping wound unless the whole regime rebuild around need rather than profit.”

Margaret Ferrier: I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1, 2, 15, 16 and 23. The events at Grenfell Tower were devastating, with the tragic loss of 72 lives, which shocked us all. Words will never adequately describe the pain felt by the families and friends of the victims. Later, though, as light was shed on the extensive preventable failings that led to the disaster, justifiable anger followed.
I am glad to see the Bill progress through this place, but it should not have taken almost five years. I welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement that leaseholders in England will not face the astronomical costs of remediating unsafe cladding. I am pleased that the Government have taken a moral stance on the issue.
Unfortunately, there are still gaps that must be plugged, and I hope that the Minister’s promise of statutory protection against all building safety defects will materialise. For my constituents, I hope that the Government will engage in a constructive dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that leaseholder protection can be extended across the UK fully funded.
There is still a glaring lack of clarity and the Government must facilitate funding being available across the devolved Administrations to achieve an equal standing. Although much of the Bill has limited territorial extent, there are some key areas that apply across the UK and in Scotland, such as the testing and inspection of construction products.
Early last year, it was announced that the independent panel on the safety of construction materials would review the testing system and how it can be strengthened so that product safety confidence can be restored. The industry is still awaiting the report’s publication, which prompts the question of how we can fully scrutinise the Bill’s measures without knowing what the review found. Can the Minister provide a definitive date for when it will be available? Will he also provide an update on the establishment of a national regulator for construction products?
As it stands, there are a limited number of private product testing companies, and fewer still of the accredited bodies’ testing sites, which means limited access to the furnaces that are used to test all combustible building materials and products. Subsequently, there are huge delays in products moving through the testing system.
Some companies are reporting delays of up to six months to test their products. The accredited sites are managed by private sector companies, and as demand increases and supply decreases, the price set by those  bodies climbs. Concerns have been raised that that model incentivises the maximising of profit over the quality of testing.
The Government must also be cautious not to create widespread quality disparity between existing buildings and new ones of any height. While preservation of life is of course the most key consideration, the lifespan of buildings must be protected too. Buildings such as schools, hospitals and care homes, which hon. Members have mentioned, should have a mandatory requirement for sprinklers. By making such buildings as safe and resilient as possible, human life is protected, yes, but many other things too. Schools are pillars of the community. Where do those students go to learn if their school burns down, or for a hospital, where do the patients go? What delays will essential services suffer?
The Bill is a mammoth piece of legislation and it is easy to look at each single part in turn to make it digestible, but a key finding in Dame Judith Hackitt’s review was that there needs to be a holistic, whole-building approach to fire safety. We ought to apply that principle here and take a whole-Bill approach, to truly understand how it will work in practice.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to all Members across the House for their contributions to the debate. I will speak in response to the non-Government amendments first and then, as I progress through my remarks, pick up the points that have been raised about the Government’s amendments.
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is not in her place; we wish her a swift recovery. I thank her for raising the matter, and I recognise that the issue that she has embedded in her amendment is intended to address the fact that the poor adversarial practices in the way that payments are charged and made within the built environment can lead to unsafe, low-quality building safety outcomes as well as poor value for money.
I assure all hon. Members that we agree that the issue is important. There is already work across Government to ensure that fair and prompt payment practices are addressed with industry—such as the construction playbook, which captures commercial best practice and specific sector reforms, outlining the Government’s expectations of how contracting authorities and suppliers, including in the supply chain, should engage with each other. That is resetting the relationship between the construction industry and the Government. It is focused on delivering a more sustainable, modern industry, better able to deliver high-quality built assets for its clients.
We published guidance as a result of work set up with the Construction Leadership Council and the procurement advisory group, alongside our recent announcement. We will now work with industry to implement the principles of that guidance as widely as we can. We support industry to lead its own important culture change to deliver the very significant changes being brought forward in the Bill. There is existing legislation—part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996—that aims to create a framework for a fair and prompt process of payment through the construction supply chain and the resolution procedure for disputes. The intention in that framework is to ensure that it is implemented throughout the construction contract.
Turning to new clause 2 and amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), our assessment is that the new Building Safety Regulator has the right two objectives to deliver this critical mission, and adding a further objective around property protection would not be necessary or beneficial.
The Bill provides the Building Safety Regulator with a broad statutory objective to improve the standard of buildings, which enables it to consider the overall performance of buildings. Meeting this objective could involve the regulator looking at such specific areas highly relevant to property protection such as security, resilience and fire safety. Therefore, we do not believe that an additional objective is necessary. Adding a specific Building Safety Regulator objective on property protection would also confuse and dilute its mission—that issue was raised in Committee. I think there was agreement across the Committee that we do not want to confuse or obfuscate the responsibilities of the Building Safety Regulator as it is set up and beds in. We want a proportionate regulatory regime that avoids putting undue and unnecessary pressures on leaseholders, but we also want to make sure that the regime builds in and beds in effectively, so I hope my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke in support of new clauses 15 and 16. Again, I am grateful to him for raising this important matter, and I can assure him that his intention is being met by the Government. Social homes are already safer than homes in other tenures in respect of electrical safety. Indeed, in 2019, 72% of social homes had all five electrical safety features compared with 60% in owner-occupied tenures and 65% of private-rented homes.
Social landlords are already required to keep electrical installations in repair due to their obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and free of electrical hazards as a result of the Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018, a Back-Bench Bill that received Government support. Since the beginning of 2019, the regulator of social housing has issued 20 regulatory judgments related wholly or partly to electrical safety issues.
The social housing White Paper that we have committed to, will involve consultation on electrical safety requirements in the social sector, and expert stakeholders will participate in the Government-led working group to inform the content of this consultation, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel able, as he said, not to press his new clauses. I am certainly happy to keep in discussion with him, because I appreciate that it is a matter of concern to him, as it should be to the entire House.
Let me turn now to new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He reminded me that we served together in Her Majesty’s Government’s Whips Office. He described it as a horror. He did not tell the House for whom it was a horror—him or his colleagues in the Whips Office. I shall leave the House to make its own judgments as to what he actually meant. None the less, I am grateful to him for raising a very important issue. Our desire to reduce deaths, injuries and hospitalisations on staircases is laudable. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for  Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) has a very particular and personal reason for taking an interest in the matter. We are committed, through current legislation and guidance, to supporting safety on staircases. We are acutely aware of the risk of death and injury that can be caused by staircases.
The new building safety regime places building safety at the heart of our very consciousness. The Building Safety Regulator will use all the evidence that it gathers to identify emerging issues with the safety and performance of buildings, including staircases, and will make recommendations to Ministers where they consider that changes to standards or guidance may be needed.
There are two reasons why, having said all that, I cannot accept my hon. Friend’s amendment. He clearly benefits from second sight—either that or he has had a sneaky peak at my speech without my knowledge—with respect to my first point. It is highly unusual, as he said in his own remarks, for the Government to include such detailed proposals in an Act of Parliament. The second reason relates to how we have structured secondary legislation, at least in recent decades. Building regulations are outcome-based, rather than prescriptive. I am keen to discuss further with my hon. Friend how we can ensure that the objectives—the outcomes—that he seeks to achieve might be met through the rather technical method of regulation. I therefore commit to talk further to him and others who have an interest in this matter.
New clause 18 was introduced by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who spoke eloquently on flood mitigation for new homes. There is a well established regulatory system. The national planning policy framework, which was updated recently, is clear that:
“Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided”.
I refer her to my speech in the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for further particulars on what is in the NPPF and what further actions we might take.
I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle in all candour that I do not believe that this Bill is the right place for new clause 18. It is a planning matter, rather than a building safety matter. I am certainly keen to continue to look at flooding issues and flood resilience, as we bring forward further legislation that relates specifically to planning. I am sure that we will have further engagement at that point.
Moving on to the new clauses and amendments raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), as ever I thank the Chairman of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee for his wise counsel and the great care that he and his Committee take to consider the Government’s proposals and present their own counter-proposals, shall we call them? Perhaps “enhancements” would be a better way of describing them.
On new clauses 23 and 73, we believe that there is no need to create a system of independent appointment. The Bill already takes unprecedented steps to raise standards in building control. We are introducing a system of oversight of the performance of building control bodies, and we are turning building control into a regulated profession, with a system of individual registration based on competence and adherence to a  code of conduct. That was debated by the Bill Committee, which agreed with the trajectory on which the Government are set.
The Bill introduces a new professional framework for the whole building control sector: both public and private sector building control bodies will have to obtain and consider the advice of a registered building inspector before exercising key regulatory activities and functions, and the Building Safety Regulator can decide whether any restrictions or conditions should be imposed on the inspector’s registration. That extra step ensures that all building control bodies are making key decisions based on advice from a professional who is proven and competent.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East spoke in support of amendment 74. I thank him for his interest and recognise the concerns that led to his tabling it. I assure him that the Bill makes provision for the Building Safety Regulator to consider a wide range of factors that influence the level of risk in categories of buildings before making recommendations or providing advice as to which categories should be considered higher risk. The Secretary of State can already consider the vulnerability of residents when making regulations. We have already responded to concerns of stakeholders and, as he said, included hospitals and care homes of at least 18 metres in height or seven stories in the new design and construction elements of the regime. That is to ensure that higher-rise buildings, which may be occupied by those who are unable to evacuate quickly or without the assistance of others, are designed and constructed under the new, more stringent regime. As ever, I am very happy to maintain a respectful and, I hope, helpful dialogue. I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press his amendment to a Division and to keep talking, as we want to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator and the regime, as it beds in, can evolve as appropriate, rather than trying to place upon it in statute too many responsibilities too soon in its life cycle.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke in favour of new clauses 24 and 25, which she tabled. The Building Safety Regulator will be the building control body for higher-risk buildings. It may, in some limited cases, be the building control body for some buildings that are not higher risk under a regulator’s notice. Where local authorities have the right skills and the capacity to assist the Building Safety Regulator and do not have a conflict of interest, we believe they should do so, and the Bill enables that to happen. However, we recognise that the Building Safety Regulator must have the right competence and capacity for its work, as I said earlier. We are therefore providing it with the powers it needs to procure the services of registered building control approvers where needed, so that it can secure the appropriate skills and expertise to deliver its regulatory function, as I said in remarking on other amendments. I hope the hon. Lady will therefore feel able not to press her new clauses to Divisions.
Before I wind up, I should try to address two points raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). He raised the question of special measures and payments made by accountable persons to special measures managers. Special measures managers will receive the building safety charge directly. I can tell him that additional costs can be directly recovered from the accountable   person. Whether leaseholders are charged by the accountable person is a matter for the lease. They can only be charged if the lease allows it.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about me about what one might call the forfeiture gap. We are working across Government to help leaseholders, as I remarked earlier on, and we will consider the gap and engage with Members across the House and other interested parties as we do so.
This, again, has been a good debate—perhaps a quieter debate, on much more technical matters, but they are no less important to make sure we have a Bill that is effective and a Bill that works. I hope the House will be able to support the Government in opposing, benignly, the new clauses and amendments I have mentioned.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 58 - Overview of part

Amendments made: 11,page81,line5, leave out “sections 104 to 113” and insert
“section (Special measures) and Schedule (Special measures)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC19 and NS1.
Amendment 12,page81,line7, at end insert
“, and make further provision in connection with that appointment”.
This amendment is consequential on NC19 and NS1.

Clause 73 - Requirement for completion certificate before occupation

Amendment made: 13,page89,line28, leave out “statutory maximum” and insert “maximum summary term”.
This amendment clarifies that a person guilty of an offence under clause 73 is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum summary term for either-way offences (as defined in clause 125).

Clause 74 - Occupation: registration requirement

Amendment made: 14,page90,line23, at end insert—
‘(4) In this section “registered” means registered under section 75.”
This amendment clarifies that “registered” means registered under clause 75.

Clause 75 - Registration of higher-risk buildings

Amendment made: 15,page90,line34, at end insert—
“(aa) the updating or other revision of information in the register;”
This amendment provides that regulations under subsection (4) may make provision about the updating or other revision of the register.

Clause 82 - Terms of appointment of building safety manager

Amendment made: 16,page95,line32, leave out “section 106(4)” and insert “paragraph 5(4) of Schedule (Special measures)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 19 and NS1.

After Clause 103

Amendments made: 17,page110,line2, leave out Clause 104.
This amendment and Amendments 18 to 26 remove clauses 104 to 113 (special measures) with a view to provision about special measures appearing in NS1.
Amendment 18,page111,line26, leave out Clause 105.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 19,page112,line7, leave out Clause 106.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 20,page112,line22, leave out Clause 107.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 21,page113,line27, leave out Clause 108.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 22,page115,line3, leave out Clause 109.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 23,page115,line24, leave out Clause 110.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 24,page115,line36, leave out Clause 111.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 25,page117,line13, leave out Clause 112.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.
Amendment 26,page118,line1, leave out Clause 113.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 17.

Clause 122 - Implied terms in leases and recovery of safety related costs

Amendments made: 27,page126,line13, leave out “section 125 of” and insert
“paragraph 1 of Schedule (Special measures) to”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.
Amendment 28,page126,line15, leave out “section 125 of” and insert
“paragraph 1 of Schedule (Special measures) to”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.
Amendment 29,page126,line35, at end insert—
“(6A) In section 81 of the Housing Act 1996 (restriction on termination of tenancy for failure to pay service charge) after subsection (4A) insert—
‘(4B) References in this section (except subsection (5)) to a service charge include a building safety charge within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.’
(6B) In section 167 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (failure to pay small amount for short period) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) In subsection (1) the reference to service charges includes building safety charges within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1985 Act.””
This amendment extends existing protections against forfeiture of a lease on the ground of non-payment of a service charge to non-payment of a building safety charge.
Amendment 30,page126,line36, leave out “the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002” and insert “that Act”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.

Clause 123 - Provision of building safety information

Amendments made: 31,page127,line32, leave out “section 125 of” and insert
“paragraph 1 of Schedule (Special measures) to”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.
Amendment 32,page129,line4 [Clause 123], leave out “section 125 of” and insert
“paragraph 1 of Schedule (Special measures) to”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39.

Clause 124 - Amendments to the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002

Amendments made: 33,page130,line30, after “commonhold association” insert
“or special measures manager for the higher-risk building”.
This amendment and Amendment 34 provide that the definition of “building safety expenses of the association” in relation to a commonhold association include the expenses incurred by a special measures manager for the building.
Amendment 34,page130,line31, after “association” insert “or manager”.
This amendment and Amendment 33 provide that the definition of “building safety expenses of the association” in relation to a commonhold association include the expenses incurred by a special measures manager for the building.
Amendment 35,page130,line33, at end insert—
““special measures manager” means a person appointed under paragraph 4 of Schedule (Special measures) to the Building Safety Act 2022.””
This amendment defines “special measures manager” for the purposes of inserted section 38A.

Clause 125 - Interpretation of Part 4

Amendments made: 36,page131, leave out lines 13 and 14.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 17, 24 and 26.
Amendment 37,page131, leave out lines 24 to 32.
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 17, 24 and 26.
Amendment 38,page132, leave out lines 4 and 5.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 17, 24 and 26.
Amendment 39,page132,line17, leave out “means a person appointed under section 105” and insert
“has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule (Special measures)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.
Amendment 40,page132,line19, leave out “has the same meaning as in section 105” and insert
“has the meaning given by paragraph 1 of Schedule (Special measures)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.

Clause 146 - Regulations

Amendments made: 59,page148,line32, at end insert—
“(za) section 131(6)(b) (new homes ombudsman scheme: meaning of “developer”),”
This amendment removes the regulation making power about the meaning of “developer” from the general provisions about powers as bespoke provision is made for this power (see NC20).
Amendment 60,page149,line13, after “69,” insert “71,”.
This amendment provides for regulations made under clause 71 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 61,page149,line13, leave out “104(10), 111(10), 113,”.
This amendment and Amendment 63 are consequential on Amendments 17, 24 and 26 and NS1.
Amendment 62,page149,line14, leave out “131(6)(b)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 59.
Amendment 63,page149,line14, at end insert
“or paragraph 2(12), 13(10) or 15(5) of Schedule (Special measures)”.
This amendment and Amendment 61 are consequential on Amendments 17, 24 and 26 and NS1.—(Christopher Pincher.)

Clause 147 - Extent

Amendments made: 64,page149,line32, at end insert—
“(aa) paragraphs 87 and 88 of Schedule 5 (and section 54 so far as relating to those paragraphs);”
This amendment provides that the consequential amendments, in Schedule 5 to the Bill, of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 extend to (ie form part of the law of) England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 65,page149,line34, leave out “and” and insert “to”.
This amendment is consequential on NC22, and provides for the new clause to extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment 66,page149,line36, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) The following provisions extend to England and Wales and Scotland—
(a) section 2(2) and Schedule 1 (amendments of Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974);
(b) sections 129 to (Amendments of the Government of Wales Act 2006) and Schedule 8 (new homes ombudsman scheme).”
This amendment adjusts the extent of the provisions about the new homes ombudsman scheme so they form part of the law of Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Amendment 67,page149,line37, at end insert—
“(4) The amendments made by Schedule (Amendments in connection with the new homes ombudsman scheme) (amendments in connection with the new homes ombudsman scheme) have the same extent as the provision amended.”
This amendment sets out the extent of the amendments made by the new Schedule included in the Bill by NS2.

Clause 148 - Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments made: 68,page150,line19, at end insert—
“(za) section 127;”
This amendment provides that clause 127 comes into force two months after Royal Assent.
Amendment 69,page150,line22, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—
“(c) sections 137 to 138.”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This amendment is consequential on NC22, and provides for the new clause to commence two months after Royal Assent.

New Schedule 1 - Special measures

Introductory
7 In this Schedule—
“special measures manager” means a person appointed under paragraph 10;
“special measures order” means an order under paragraph 10.
Notification by regulator before applying for special measures order
8 (1) This paragraph applies where the regulator proposes to make an application under paragraph 10 for a special measures order in relation to an occupied higher-risk building.
(2) The regulator must give a notice (an “initial notice”) of the proposal to—
(a) each accountable person for the building,
(b) any building safety manager for the building,
(c) each resident of the building who is aged 16 or over,
(d) each owner of a residential unit in the building,
(e) any managing agent for the building or any relevant part of the building,
(f) any recognised tenants’ association for the building or any part of the building,
(g) any manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in relation to the building or any part of the building,
(h) the fire and rescue authority for the area in which the building is situated,
(i) the local housing authority for the area in which the building is situated,
(j) where any accountable person for the building is a registered provider of social housing, the Regulator of Social Housing, and
(k) where any part of the building contains premises occupied for the purposes of a business, each responsible person (within the meaning of article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) in relation to those premises.
(3) The initial notice must—
(a) state that the regulator proposes to make an application for a special measures order in relation to the building,
(b) specify the address of the building,
(c) specify the reasons for the proposed application,
(d) specify the terms of the order that the regulator proposes to invite the tribunal to make (including the name and address of the person the regulator proposes to be the special measures manager for the building),
(e) specify a period in which recipients of the notice may make representations in response to the notice, and
(f) state that any representations must be in writing to such postal or email address as is specified in the notice.
(4) Where the terms specified by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(d) include a term requiring an accountable person for the building to make payments to the special measures manager for the building, the regulator must give to the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) a financial management proposal with the initial notice.
(5) After the end of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(e) the regulator must—
(a) decide whether to make the application, and
(b) give a notice (a “final notice”) of its decision to the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
(6) The final notice must—
(a) state whether or not the regulator intends to make the application,
(b) specify the reasons for reaching that decision, and
(c) if the regulator intends to make the application, specify the terms of the order that the regulator intends to invite the tribunal to make (including the name and address of the person the regulator proposes to be the special measures manager for the building).
(7) Where the terms specified by virtue of sub-paragraph (6)(c) include a term requiring an accountable person for the building to make payments to the special measures manager for the building, the regulator must give to the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) a financial management proposal with the final notice.
(8) The regulator must comply with sub-paragraphs (5) to (7) before making the application.
(9) The duty under sub-paragraph (2), (4), (5)(b) or (7) does not apply in relation to a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) if the regulator—
(a) is not aware of the person, and
(b) has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the persons mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(10) In this paragraph—
“financial management proposal” has the meaning given by paragraph 9;
“relevant part”, in relation to a higher-risk building, means any part of the building except premises occupied for the purposes of a business.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to notices under this paragraph, including in particular provision about—
(a) the form of the notice;
(b) the way in which the notice must be given.
(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list in sub-paragraph (2).
Meaning of “financial management proposal”
9 (1) In this Schedule “financial management proposal”, in relation to a higher-risk building, means a document setting out—
(a) an estimate of the relevant expenses the regulator expects a special measures manager for the building to incur (including a reasonable amount in respect of contingencies),
(b) the measures to which the relevant expenses relate, and
(a) if there is more than one accountable person for the building—
(i) the regulator's proposed apportionment of the relevant expenses between them, and
(ii) the reasons for that proposal (including any calculation giving rise to it).
(2) In this Schedule—
“building safety charge” has the meaning given by Schedule 2 to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;
“relevant expenses” means expenses incurred by the special measures manager for a higher-risk building in connection with the exercise of their functions in relation to the building after deducting amounts received or receivable by the manager by way of building safety charges in respect of those expenses.
Special measures order
10 (1) The regulator may apply to the tribunal for an order under this paragraph in relation to an occupied higher-risk building (a “special measures order”).
(2) A special measures order is an order appointing a person to be the manager (a “special measures manager”) for the building to carry out the functions of all accountable persons for the building under, or under regulations made under, this Part (except the duty to appoint a building safety manager under section 80).
(3) A special measures order may also appoint the manager to carry out any function as a receiver in relation to—
(a) building safety charges, or
(b) commonhold building safety assessments.
(4) The tribunal may make a special measures order if satisfied that there has been a serious failure, or a failure on two or more occasions, by an accountable person for the building to comply with a duty imposed on that person under, or under regulations made under, this Part.
(5) A special measures order may make provision with respect to—
(a) payments to be made by an accountable person for the building to the special measures manager in connection with relevant expenses incurred, or to be incurred, by the manager,
(b) any other matter relating to the exercise of the manager’s functions, and
(c) any incidental or ancillary matter.
(6) A special measures order may not make the provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a) in relation to a higher-risk building on commonhold land.
(7) A special measures order continues in force until it is discharged.
(8) In this Schedule “commonhold building safety assessment” means income raised from commonhold unit-holders by virtue of section 38A of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Special measures order: supplementary
11 (1) This paragraph applies where a special measures order is made in relation to a higher-risk building.
(2) While the order is in force any function of an accountable person for the building under, or under regulations made under, this Part is to be treated as a function of the special measures manager for the building, except any function relating to—
(a) the making of an application to the tribunal, or
(b) the making of an appeal to the tribunal.
(3) Any compliance notice given under section 101 relating to the building ceases to have effect (but this does not affect any liability incurred as a result of a contravention of a compliance notice occurring before the making of the order).
(4) The appointment of any building safety manager for the building under section 80 ceases to have effect.
Payments received by special measures manager to be held on trust
12 (1) This paragraph applies where a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building requires one or more accountable persons for the building to make payments to the special measures manager for the building.
(2) The manager must hold the payments (together with any income accruing on those payments) as either—
(a) a single trust fund, or
(b) in two or more separate trust funds.
(3) The manager must hold any trust fund—
(a) on trust to defray relevant expenses, and
(b) subject to that, on trust for the accountable person or persons for the building for the time being.
(4) The accountable person or persons for the building for the time being are to be treated as entitled by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(b) to—
(a) if there is one accountable person for the building, the residue of the fund or funds;
(b) otherwise, to such shares in that residue as the accountable persons may agree in writing or (in default of agreement) as the tribunal may direct.
(5) An application for a direction under sub-paragraph (4)(b) may be made by—
(a) the regulator,
(b) an accountable person for the building, or
(c) the manager.
Effect of special measures order on relevant contracts and legal proceedings
13 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) apply while a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building is in force.
(2) A relevant contract has effect as if the rights and liabilities of a relevant person arising under the contract were the rights and liabilities of the special measures manager for the building.
(3) A contract is a “relevant contract” if—
(a) it is effective on the date the special measures order is made,
(b) one of the parties to it is a relevant person,
(c) it relates to a relevant function of a relevant person,
(d) it is specified for the purposes of this sub-paragraph in the special measures order or falls within a description of contracts so specified, and
(e) the manager gives notices in writing to the parties to it stating that sub-paragraph (2) is to apply to it.
(4) The special measures manager for the building may bring, continue or defend a relevant cause of action.
(5) A cause of action is a “relevant cause of action” if—
(a) it accrued to or against a relevant person before the date the special measures order was made,
(b) it relates to a relevant function of a relevant person,
(c) it is specified for the purposes of this sub-paragraph in the special measures order or falls within a description of causes of action so specified, and
(d) the manager gives notice in writing to any person the manager considers would have an interest in the cause of action that sub-paragraph (4) is to apply to it.
(6) Where, by virtue of this paragraph, the special measures manager for the building is subject to a liability to pay damages in respect of anything done (or not done) before the date of their appointment by or on behalf of a relevant person, that person is liable to reimburse to the manager an amount equal to the amount of damages paid by the manager.
(7) In this paragraph—
“relevant function” means—
(a) in relation to an accountable person for the building, a function of that person under, or under regulations made under, this Part in relation to the building;
(b) in relation to the building safety manager for the building, any BSM duty of that person (within the meaning of section 80) in relation to the building;
“relevant person” means—
(a) an accountable person for the building in relation to which the special measures order is made;
(b) the building safety manager for that building immediately before the special measures order was made.
Special measures orders and orders under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
14 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies where—
(a) the tribunal makes a special measures order in relation to a higher-risk building, and
(b) an order under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 appointing a manager in relation to that building is in force (a “section 24 order”).
(2) The tribunal may amend the section 24 order so as to ensure that the functions to be carried out by virtue of that order do not include any function that the special measures order provides is to be carried out by the special measures manager.
(3) In section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, after subsection (2B) insert—
“(2C) Where a special measures order relating to the building is in force, an order under this section may not provide for a manager to carry out a function which the special measures order provides is to be carried out by the special measures manager for the building.
(2D) In this section—
“special measures manager” means a person appointed under paragraph 10 of Schedule (Special measures) to the Building Safety Act 2022;
“special measures order” means an order under paragraph 10 of Schedule (Special measures) to the Building Safety Act 2022.”
15 (1) The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 21(2) after “subsection (3)” insert “and section 24ZA”.
(3) After section 24 insert—
“24ZA Application for appointment of manager by special measures manager
(1) A special measures manager for an occupied higher-risk building may apply to the appropriate tribunal for an order under section 24 (as modified by subsection (4)) appointing a manager to act in relation to premises to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to premises consisting of the whole or part of the higher-risk building if the building or part contains two or more flats.
(3) Section 22 applies in relation to such an application as if—
(a) for subsection (1) there were substituted—
“(1) Before an application for an order under section 24 is made in respect of any premises to which section 24ZA applies by a special measures manager for an occupied higher-risk building, a notice under this section must (subject to subsection (3)) be served by the special measures manager on—
(a) the landlord;
(b) any person (other than the landlord) by whom obligations relating to the management of the premises or any part of them are owed to tenants of flats contained in those premises under a tenancy;
(c) each accountable person for the higher-risk building.”;
(b) for subsection (2)(a) there were substituted—
“(a) specify the special measures manager’s name and an address in England and Wales at which any person on whom the notice is served may serve notices, including notices in proceedings, on the special measures manager in connection with this Part;”;
(c) in subsection (2)(b)—
(i) for “tenant” there were substituted “special measures manager”;
(ii) for “this Part” there were substituted “section 24ZA”;
(d) in subsection (2)(c) for “tenant” there were substituted “special measures manager”.
(4) Section 24 applies in relation to such an application as if—
(a) in subsection (1) for “this Part” there were substituted “section 24ZA”;
(b) for subsection (2) there were substituted—
“(2) The appropriate tribunal may only make an order under this section where it is satisfied—
(a) that—
(b) that other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for the order to be made.”;
(c) subsections (2A), (2B) and (10) were omitted.
(5) In this section “special measures manager” has the meaning given by section 24(2D).”
Provision of financial assistance by regulator
16 (1) The regulator may give financial assistance to the special measures manager for a higher-risk building by way of loans or grants.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to financial assistance given under this paragraph, including in particular provision about—
(a) the circumstances in which financial assistance may be given;
(b) the kind of financial assistance that may be given;
(c) conditions that may or must be attached to any financial assistance (including conditions as to repayment).
(3) In this paragraph “special measures manager”, in relation to a higher-risk building, includes the person who was the special measures manager for that building immediately before the special measures order relating to the building was discharged.
Special measures order: further directions
17 (1) This paragraph applies while a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building is in force.
(2) On an application by a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) the tribunal may give directions to the special measures manager for the building or any other person with respect to—
(a) any matter relating to the exercise of the manager’s functions, and
(b) any incidental or ancillary matter.
(3) The persons are—
(a) the regulator,
(b) an accountable person for the building, or
(c) the manager.
Regulator to keep certain matters under review
18 (1) This paragraph applies while a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building is in force.
(2) The regulator must, from time to time (and at least once every 12 months), review the following matters—
(a) the measures taken by the special measures manager in exercising the manager’s functions;
(b) the expenses incurred by the manager in connection with taking those measures;
(c) any payments made by accountable persons for the building to the manager in respect of any of those expenses;
(d) any amounts received by the manager by way of building safety charges or commonhold building safety assessments in relation to the building.
(3) If, on such a review, the regulator considers that any term of the order should be varied, it must make such application under paragraph 20 as it considers appropriate.
Notification by regulator before applying to vary special measures order
19 (1) This paragraph applies where the regulator proposes to make an application under paragraph 20 to vary a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building.
(2) The regulator must give a notice (an “initial notice”) of the proposal to—
(a) each accountable person for the building,
(b) each resident of the building who is aged 16 or over,
(c) each owner of a residential unit in the building,
(d) any managing agent for the building or any relevant part of the building,
(e) any recognised tenants’ association for the building or any part of the building,
(f) any manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in relation to the building or any part of the building,
(g) the fire and rescue authority for the area in which the building is situated,
(h) the local housing authority for the area in which the building is situated,
(i) where any accountable person for the building is a registered provider of social housing, the Regulator of Social Housing, and
(j) where any part of the building contains premises occupied for the purposes of a business, each responsible person (within the meaning of article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) in relation to those premises.
(3) The initial notice must—
(a) state that the regulator proposes to make an application to vary the special measures order specified in the notice,
(b) specify the reasons for the proposed application,
(c) specify the terms of the order that the regulator proposes to invite the tribunal to make,
(d) specify a period in which recipients of the notice may make representations in response to the notice, and
(e) state that any representations must be in writing to such postal or email address as is specified in the notice.
(4) After the end of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(d) the regulator must—
(a) decide whether to make the application, and
(b) give a notice (a “final notice”) of its decision to the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
(5) The final notice must—
(a) state whether or not the regulator intends to make the application,
(b) specify the reasons for reaching that decision, and
(c) if the regulator intends to make the application, specify the terms of the order that the regulator intends to invite the tribunal to make.
(6) The regulator must comply with sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) before making the application.
(7) The duty under sub-paragraph (2) or (4)(b) does not apply in relation to a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) if the regulator—
(a) is not aware of the person, and
(b) has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the persons mentioned in that sub-paragraph.
(8) In this paragraph “relevant part”, in relation to a higher-risk building, has the meaning given by paragraph 8(10).
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to notices under this paragraph, including in particular provision about—
(a) the form of the notice;
(b) the way in which the notice must be given.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list in sub-paragraph (2).
Variation or discharge of special measures order
20 (1) The tribunal may vary or discharge a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building on an application by—
(a) the regulator,
(b) an accountable person for the building, or
(c) the special measures manager for the building.
(2) An application to vary a special measures order so as to change the identity of the manager may only be made by the regulator.
(3) In considering whether to vary or discharge an order the tribunal must have regard to—
(a) the likelihood of variation or discharge of the order resulting in a recurrence of the circumstances which led to the order being made, and
(b) whether it is just and convenient in all the circumstances to vary or discharge the order.
(4) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not apply on an application where each person mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) agrees to the application (and for this purpose where there is more than one accountable person each accountable person must agree).
(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not require the agreement of the special measures manager where that person lacks capacity to agree to the application.
(6) Where the order is varied or discharged, the tribunal may give directions to any person with respect to—
(a) any matter relating to the variation or discharge, and
(b) any incidental or ancillary matter.
(7) Where the order is discharged the tribunal must direct the special measures manager to—
(a) prepare a reconciliation account, and
(b) give a copy of the account to—
(i) the regulator, and
(ii) each accountable person for the building.
(8) The tribunal may give a direction under sub-paragraph (6)(a) (at the time the order is discharged or after that time) for the making of a payment—
(a) by an accountable person for the building to the special measures manager, or
(b) by the special measures manager to an accountable person for the building.
(9) In this paragraph—
“reconciliation account” means a document—
(a) setting out, in relation to the period during which the special measures order was in force, a comparison between—
(b) containing a statement explaining any differences;
“relevant account” means an account in which any of the following are (or have been) held—
(a) payments made by an accountable person for the building to the manager;
(b) amounts received by the manager by way of building safety charges or commonhold building safety assessments in relation to the building.
(10) In this paragraph “special measures manager”, in relation to a higher-risk building, includes the person who was the special measures manager for that building immediately before the special measures order relating to the building was discharged.
Notifications about special measures order
21 (1) The regulator must take all reasonable steps to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) of the making of a special measures order in relation to a higher-risk building.
(2) The regulator must take all reasonable steps to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) (other than the person mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(b)) of the variation or discharge of a special measures order in relation to a higher-risk building.
(3) The persons are—
(a) each accountable person for the building,
(b) any building safety manager for the building immediately before the special measures order was made,
(a) each resident of the building who is aged 16 or over,
(b) each owner of a residential unit in the building,
(c) any managing agent for the building or any relevant part of the building,
(d) any recognised tenants’ association for the building or any part of the building,
(e) any manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in relation to the building or any part of the building,
(f) the fire and rescue authority for the area in which the building is situated,
(g) the local housing authority for the area in which the building is situated,
(h) where any accountable person for the building is a registered provider of social housing, the Regulator of Social Housing, and
(i) where any part of the building contains premises occupied for the purposes of a business, each responsible person (within the meaning of article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) in relation to those premises.
(4) In this paragraph “relevant part”, in relation to a higher-risk building, has the meaning given by paragraph 8(10).
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the list in sub-paragraph (3).
Special measures order: change in accountable person etc
22 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply where at any time (“the relevant time”) during which a special measures order relating to a higher-risk building is in force, an accountable person for the building (“the outgoing person”) ceases to be responsible for all or any part of the building (“the relevant part of the building”).
(2) From the relevant time the special measures order ceases to apply to the outgoing person in relation to the relevant part of the building.
(3) From the relevant time the special measures order applies to any person who, immediately after the relevant time—
(a) is an accountable person for the building, and
(b) is responsible for the relevant part of the building or any part of the relevant part, as it applied to the outgoing person in relation to the relevant part or part of the relevant part (as the case may be) immediately before the relevant time.
(4) But sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) do not affect any liability under the order to which the outgoing person became subject before the relevant time.
(5) Where an enactment requires interests, charges or other obligations affecting land to be registered, sub-paragraph (3) has effect whether or not the special measures order is registered.
(6) Nothing in this paragraph affects the powers of the tribunal under paragraph 20 (power to vary special measures order etc).
Interpretation
23 In this Schedule—
“building safety charge” has the meaning given by paragraph 9;
“commonhold building safety assessment” has the meaning given by paragraph 10;
“local housing authority” has the meaning given by section 261 of the Housing Act 2004;
“managing agent”: for the purposes of this Schedule a person (A) is a managing agent for any part of a building if—
(a) A has been appointed to discharge the obligations of a person (B) relating to the management by B of that part of the building, and
(b) B has a legal estate in that part of the building which is—
“recognised tenants’ association” has the meaning given by section 29 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985;
“relevant expenses” has the meaning given by paragraph 9;
“special measures manager” has the meaning given by paragraph 7;
“special measures order” has the meaning given by paragraph 7.”—(Christopher Pincher.)
This new schedule makes provision for, and in connection with, the making of special measures orders in relation to higher-risk buildings. The new Schedule is intended to replace clauses 104 to 113 and be inserted after Schedule 6.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Building safety charges

Amendment made: 70,page194,line39, leave out “Part 4 of” and insert “Schedule (Special measures) to”.—(Christopher Pincher.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment NS1.
Third Reading

Christopher Pincher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill represents the biggest overhaul of building and fire safety legislation in a generation, and today’s proceedings represent a significant staging post on our shared journey towards a regime that is more robust and more proportionate. In a modern liberal democracy, living in a home where you feel safe should be a basic human right, but sadly, for thousands of people up and down our country, this most reasonable of expectations does not tally with their current experience. This Bill is going to right that wrong by replacing an outdated building system with one that is attuned not just to where we are in 2021 but to how we protect people in 2031, 2041 and for many years beyond. We recognise from the outset the need for new legislation to be based on the solid foundations of independent and objective expertise, which is why, as Members across the House will know, we are delivering on the recommendations set out by Dame Judith Hackitt in her independent review of building regulations and fire safety.
It will not have escaped the House’s attention that while we have been scrutinising the Bill line by line in Committee and on Report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been pressing ahead with wider reforms on issues that have plagued this sector for years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have set about restoring much-needed common sense to our building safety regime, through the Secretary of State’s statement on 10 January and the Prime Minister’s remarks earlier during Question Time.
There has been progress since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, but our view in Government is that the pace of rectifying high-rise buildings with dangerous and unsafe cladding has not married up to the gravity of the situation, so we must move more effectively and more quickly. That is why we have brought the Bill to the House today to complete its remaining stages, so that it can progress smoothly and quickly to the other place where the robust legislative protections that we have outlined in previous statements can be properly and sensibly made. The Bill can then come back to this House for proper scrutiny, and I am sure that the business managers—the usual channels—will ensure that appropriate time is made available for it to conclude. We must complete this Bill. It has been on the stocks for far too long. Too many people have suffered too much, and we must, through this legislation and through the suite of measures the Secretary of State announced in his statement on 10 January, right the wrong that has been done to too many people. I commend the Bill to the House, not as the end but as the end of the beginning.

Matthew Pennycook: I would like to start by thanking the Bill team, the Clerks, the House staff and the Library specialists for facilitating the debates in the House on this important piece of legislation, as well as all those hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the proceedings, particularly those on both sides who took it through Committee over a great many weeks last year.
The impetus for this Bill, and what I am sure has been at the forefront of our minds throughout its passage to date, is the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower four and a half years ago. As I suggested on Report, it is not pre-empting the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s conclusions to state that the horror of that dreadful June night in 2017 was the product not only of pernicious industry practice but of state failure: a failure that involved successive Governments presiding over a deficient regulatory regime, and a failure to act on repeated and clear warnings about the potentially lethal consequences of that fact. That is why the Government and industry have a shared responsibility to make all buildings safe and to resolve the building safety crisis fully and finally, in a way that protects all those living in dangerous buildings who bear no responsibility for it whatsoever.
To the extent that the Bill implements the recommendations of the Hackitt review, provides for a stronger regulatory framework for building safety and ensures clearer accountability on the management of risk in buildings over their lifecycle, we support it. We welcome the improvements made on Report, and we want to see a version of the Bill given Royal Assent as soon as possible,
However, this Bill leaves a range of fire safety issues unresolved, from the lack of a national strategy on how to evacuate high-rise buildings to the absence of a requirement to plan for the escape of disabled residents. The Bill is not in itself a panacea for the building safety crisis. Even on its own terms, we have argued that it could and should have gone further in several important respects, whether in relation to the arbitrary definition of height or the issue of product testing.
We have concerns about the Bill’s implementation, specifically whether the new building safety regime will be able to function as intended and whether the new building safety regulator within the Health and Safety Executive, which the Bill makes responsible for all aspects of the new framework, has the resource and capacity to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it.
Hoping that the hard deadline will conjure the necessary outcomes, whether in relation to building control, skills shortages or ongoing concerns about indemnity insurance, is not good enough and we intend to monitor closely whether the new regime operates effectively in practice. We are disappointed that, despite the clear strength of feeling across the House and following our extensive debates, we are being asked to send this Bill to the other place without changes having been made to provide robust legal protection for leaseholders who are facing ruinous costs for remediating historical cladding and non-cladding defects. The Opposition have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that, without changes to provide for such robust protection from all costs, it will fail what Dame Judith described as the “ultimate test” of any new framework, namely the rebuilding of public confidence in the system.
The House will have noted the extremely legalistic language that the Minister used on Report in response to several questions on whether the Government will table amendments in the other place on leaseholder protection, on when they plan to do so, on what those amendments will look like and on whether this place will have sufficient time to debate them. Do not underestimate the degree to which expectations have been raised by the repeated and unambiguous commitments the Secretary of State made last week to amend this Bill in pursuit of protection for leaseholders in relation to all the work required to make buildings safe.
For all the gaps raised by the Secretary of State’s statement and all the obvious gaps that remain in his new plan, leaseholders across the country who are caught up in this scandal drew comfort from his words, believing them to be a signal that the Government are finally prepared to honour the promises given by successive Secretaries of State and Ministers from the Dispatch Box that leaseholders will be fully protected.
That the blameless leaseholders at the centre of this crisis should be protected is, we believe, incontrovertible. The mental and financial toll this crisis has taken on them is incalculable. Lives have been put on hold, relationships have broken down, retirements have been ruined and countless hours have been forever lost as a result of spending evenings and weekends researching, lobbying and campaigning. In far too many cases, savings have vanished entirely and homes have been lost to bankruptcy.
The Secretary of State spoke last week of the injustice of asking leaseholders to pay money they do not have to fix a problem they did not cause. He was absolutely right, but if it is unjust that leaseholders pay in the future, it surely follows that it is unjust that so many have already paid or are being asked to pay now. The Government must look at financial redress and how it might be secured.
When it comes to protecting leaseholders in the future, we forcefully made the case throughout the Bill’s passage for the maximum legal protection for all those facing potential costs to fix historical defects, irrespective of circumstance. On Report we asked the Minister to give serious consideration to several issues of concern arising directly from the Secretary of State’s commitment to amend the Bill to achieve that.
We support the passage of the Bill tonight because we want the recommendations of the Hackitt review to be implemented and a stronger safety regime to be put in place as soon as possible, but we await the tabling in the other place of the promised amendments on leaseholder protection. We sincerely hope that when the Secretary of State says he intends to protect leaseholders from paying any costs, he truly means it, and that consequently the Bill will not be yet another false dawn, but will deliver justice finally for all the blameless victims of the building safety scandal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I just want to say that we have a fair number of people who want to speak and not an enormous amount of time, so please bear that in mind. I call Sir Peter Bottomley.

Peter Bottomley: To use the words of a former Prime Minister, I agree with Matthew. I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his contribution to Third Reading, and thank the Minister, who over the months has moved progressively—if I may use that expression in relation to a Conservative—to do many of the things that, frankly, ought to have been done within months of Grenfell, if not before.
I have two major regrets. One is that the reaction to Grenfell was to make it party political, even though most of the 12,000 buildings affected were not built by Tory councils and have problems just as great as those at Grenfell. The second, which is a different point, is that when the sad crash in the tunnel in Paris, in which three people died and one survived, occurred, the media, instead of saying on the first day that the survivor had been wearing a seatbelt and the three who died had not and that the driver was twice over the legal limit, allowed that point to be lost behind the paparazzi story. If the truth had come out straight away, the number of deaths in Europe over the next year would have been halved.
In terms of fire safety and building safety, in my view it was wrong to say that 18 metres was the cut-off point. It may have been arbitrary that that was the highest level the fire could get to, but analysis of the risk to people in homes is that most deaths are at lower heights, not higher ones. We have also learned lessons on dealing with fires that will not be forgotten.
The Bill goes a long way to meeting some of the needs that were reasonably obvious at the beginning. The underlying problem is that Dame Judith Hackitt was not, I think, properly briefed on the law on residential leasehold, and that caused the mis-steps that are now beginning to be put right. I hope that as a result of the Secretary of State’s consultations with people such as Philip Rainey and other barristers and solicitors who are expert in this field, we will be able to modify the simple polluter pays principle into a practical measure.
We need to stop homes being lethal. We need to stop legalities getting in the way of justice and effective action. We want to take away the financial burden and nightmare from residential leaseholders. We want to make sure that social landlords are not left with the costs that, frankly, should not be theirs. We have a lot more progress to make. It is a matter of faith in the Government that, together with the amendments made today—I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen and the officials in the Department on the progress they have made so far—we can hope to see further progress and better amendments and supplementary ones tabled in the House of Lords, which can come back here and be both successful and acceptable.
I have two further points for the Minister. Outside this Bill, we look forward to the Law Commission reforms being put to Parliament in an effective way. Last, on the question of forfeiture, which has come up occasionally in today’s debates, I want there to be no question that a leaseholder’s equity should be forfeited just because their home is sold to pay some debt. We must change the law to say that any remaining equity goes back to the leaseholder and is not put in the hands of the landlord. William the Conqueror was king over 950 years ago. His feudal memory should not be continued  in our housing system. It is time to enact in practice provisions that the House of Commons passed in law—ineffectively—in 2002. Let us have justice for residential leaseholders.

Paul Blomfield: I am pleased to have the opportunity at this point, before the Bill progresses to the other place, to speak about some of the issues that will need to be addressed in the amendments that have been promised by the Secretary of State on protection for leaseholders—issues about which, today and for quite some time, there has been cross-party concern. I pay tribute to thehon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for the work that he has done in this regard, and to the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for his contribution over a long period.
On both sides of the House there is clearly a consensus on what needs to be done, which has been reflected in the debates this afternoon, and it is right that there should be, because we are seeking to address a glaring injustice facing leaseholders who are victims not just of developers but, as was pointed out by the Chair of the Select Committee, myhon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), of regulatory failure, for which we are responsible and over which successive Government have presided.
It is unfortunate that we have been debating the Bill so soon after the Government’s announcement last week, before the Secretary of State had the opportunity to table his amendments so that they could receive the scrutiny they deserved. However, his statement did constitute a step forward. Some of my constituents who have been affected met him before the statement, and they shared my view that while the narrative was good and the direction of travel felt right, there remained too many unanswered questions. I want to set out briefly the concerns that they have, which must be addressed in the Government’s amendments in the other place.
Residents of Mandale House, for instance, made an application to the building safety fund for cladding work, 80% of which was rejected because—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned this earlier—the juxtaposition of zinc and timber failed to meet the current criteria. That left them facing bills for tens of thousands of pounds. In the Metis Building there is a problem with wooden balconies, while in Wicker Riverside the problem is compartmentation. Those problems clearly affect many other buildings as well, in my constituency and across the country. We therefore need an absolute assurance that the statutory protection will cover all non-cladding remediation.
Residents of Mandale House face a further problem, in that their developer is no longer in business. We know that is a problem in hundreds of buildings. Companies have failed, or have been deliberately collapsed to enable them to avoid responsibility. It needs to be made clear that those leaseholders will not be overlooked, and that the Government will give them full support in respect of all safety remediation costs.
One of my constituents in the Millsands building asked for reassurance that support should be provided for leaseholders not in occupation of their flats. As my  right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central pointed out, many have been forced to leave to raise the funds to try to pay the bills demanded of them. Others have left as their families have grown. They have done the sensible thing: they have moved on and used the rental income from their property to fund their new house. For some, the investment was the use of a lump sum to provide a retirement income in a solitary flat. As the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) argued earlier, those people are victims too, and they need to be fully supported. We also need a statement sending a clear message to freeholders and developers that they must not rush to carry out work in order to avoid their responsibilities by imposing costs on leaseholders now, before the protection becomes part of legislation.
There is another issue, faced by my constituents in Wicker Riverside, a building from which residents were evacuated just before Christmas 2020 because of fire safety concerns. They have a problem with insurance—not that of rising costs, on which other Members commented earlier and for which there should be compensation, but the fact that no insurance company will provide cover for their building. They have been uninsurable for more than a year. That is an untenable position that the Government must, and could, act to address. I have discussed the issue with Ministers.
Finally, there is overriding concern about how long the process proposed by the Government will take, as legal action drags on and there is resistance from developers and others whom the developers may hold accountable and endless litigation. There is a risk that the problem, rather than being solved, will be prolonged for a very long time indeed. If the Government are confident that money can be recovered from developers, they could and should simply act to fix all the faults now and then use the full resources of the state to recover the money from those responsible. That way, as Members on the Opposition and Government Benches have said throughout today’s debate, no costs will fall on those who have no responsibility for the predicament they are in.

Stephen McPartland: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I am hopeful this evening and, like many Members from all parties, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), to the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and to colleagues across the House who have worked so hard to get us where we are today.
This is a huge Bill that tries to deal with some of the after-effects of the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. I have been to meet residents at New Providence Wharf, who have also had a very difficult time. Some of the issues they have had are heartbreaking and it is incredibly difficult to speak to them and hear what they have been through. We talk about fire safety in this place, but meeting people who were involved in fires and who were trapped in properties really brings it home.
I understand why the Government want to bring the Bill forward as quickly as they can. They have tabled 70 amendments and I understand their desire to work with Members across party lines to get to a much better place in respect of the bits we want. Although it is a very large Bill, a lot of us in the Chamber are focused  on a small part of it: the provisions on leaseholders and leaseholder protections. That is the bit on which my colleagues and I mainly focus. It is important for me and for leaseholders up and down the country that they are not held responsible for historic fire safety defects and construction defects.
Let me remind the House where we have come from. When we started our campaign about 18 months ago, the Government’s original offer was around £20 million to deal with these issues. After the statement from the Secretary of State last week, we are now on course to have more than £9 billion of Government support, with probably another £100 million for waking watch, alarms and a variety of other issues. The Government have moved forward massively.
I do not always support the Government but, in fairness to them, on this issue we have asked and they have negotiated. There is a new tone and a new willingness to work both across party lines and within the governing party to resolve this issue for leaseholders, so we have hope. Tonight, millions of leaseholders up and down the country, many with huge mental health issues and facing massive financial ruin, have hope. That hope encourages us to believe that we may finally come to a position where we can resolve things for those millions of leaseholders.
We are in the position we are in because, although a lot of people will not realise this, the Prime Minister has intervened directly on a number of occasions to get us to a state in which we can support each other, negotiate and get more than £9 billion-worth of support for leaseholders, which is an amazing achievement. I am delighted with the work we have done behind the scenes to get us to where we are. Because of that hope and the constructive way in which the Government have worked with us behind the scenes, we want to give them the room to work with us a bit further and to table amendments in the House of Lords to protect leaseholders in law. That is what we want—that is our first request.
The second request that I continue to make is that amendments are made to protect leaseholders in respect of internal fire safety defects and not just external ones. At Vista Tower in my constituency, which has more than £15 million-worth of remediation costs, the fire breaks are missing. They would have been in the plans and signed off by the developers and the building regulatory regime, but they are missing. We have to think about how we can support constituents like that.

Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend allow me to add to what he is saying? The insurance companies are claiming premiums that are 10 or 20 times higher than before because there are additional fire risks. All this work should lead to reduced fire risks. Will he support me in asking the Government to get together with the technical sides of the insurance companies and the Competition and Markets Authority to get those insurance premiums back down to what they were before so that leaseholders may pay £300 a year to insure a building they do not own rather than £3,000 a year?

Stephen McPartland: I completely support the Father of the House, as he knows, in all matters.
It is important that the Government have accepted the principles of everything that we have asked for throughout this 18-month campaign. I am very grateful  for that. With all the technical details, that campaign has demonstrated how complicated this issue is and the many millions of people and tens of thousands of buildings it affects in many different ways. In fairness to the Minister and the Government, it is very difficult to put all that into a Bill, so they do need time. As long as they are prepared to work with us, we are prepared to give them that time so as to support leaseholders and ensure that they do not have to pay for these historical fire safety defects.
I have one final request for the Minister on behalf of those constituents of mine in Vista Tower who have been affected by the building being no doubt shoddily built and not to the plans of the time. Will the Government be prepared to provide support so that those leaseholders can take action against the original developers, or will the Government take the action on their behalf, because a lot of these leaseholders have been going through this for a number of years and no longer have the mental resilience or ability to take these fights on and take legal actions for the next five or 10 years in the courts? Will the Minister provide further support to those leaseholders? Will he agree to continue to meet and work with me so that we can ensure that leaseholders are not held responsible and they are the innocent parties throughout this crisis?

Caroline Lucas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I pay tribute to all his work on this issue, and the work of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the Select Committee and many others.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, but I want to return to the issue of leaseholders, which is still one of the most worrying outstanding issues. I welcome the fierce determination that I have heard from Members in all parts of the House to make sure that we will not rest until we ensure that that protection for leaseholders is absolutely written into the Bill. I welcome the spirit of the Secretary of State’s statement last week, including the recognition that leaseholders are blameless in the scandal. He said that
“it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 283.]
I agree, but unfortunately there is still too much lacking in this Bill. Like the gaps and defects in my constituents’ homes, there are gaping holes that still need fixing, including the firm commitment that we need to ensure that the burden for repairs, including non-cladding remedial work, does not fall on leaseholders. I am disappointed that the Minister has been unable to offer us more reassurance on that point.
This is not just about determining who will pay for construction defects. We need to know when they are going to pay, what happens should they refuse, and exactly what costs will be covered when they do so. What will happen in March if there is deadlock and developers do not agree to the £4 billion suggested in the Secretary of State’s letter to the residential property developer industry? What assessment have the Government made of the need for housing associations to access funding collected from the industry to cover the costs of leaseholders and to ensure that the delivery of social housing is not impacted by the fall-out from this crisis? What measures will be put in place to end individual  legal disputes about liability if developers or manufacturers of materials, for example, refuse to accept liability for defects of their making?
I want to focus on one particular issue, which comes down to the fact that many developments are owned by absent and faceless freeholders via asset management companies. That means that getting something that should be very simple, like the signature of a freeholder on an application form, is very far from being straightforward, especially when offshore companies appear determined to avoid paper trails that might lead back to them at a later date. Let me give an example. On Friday, leaseholders at Stepney Court in my constituency received legal papers from their managing agent, FirstPort Property Services Ltd. They were horrified to be told that FirstPort intends to recover the estimated £4,912,000 for repairs from the leaseholders if the application to the building safety fund is not successful. That will mean that constituents such as the single working mother who paid £60,000 for a 25% share of her property will be lumbered with a repair bill of £110,000. That is not fair and it should not be allowed to happen.
All the while, the head lessee of those residential properties, Abacus Land 4 Ltd lurks in the background. Its role in the saga remains unclear, but what we do know about the elusive Abacus is that it is registered in Guernsey. It is administered by the asset management company, Long Harbour. Although I recognise that Abacus is not the developer, the mystery surrounding it and the confusing chain of accountability suggests that it is an example of what is at the very heart of the scandal: faceless investors making money out of shoddy, substandard and often downright unsafe housing.
It is not okay for freeholders to hold leaseholders to ransom. It is not okay for freeholders to hold up building safety fund applications by refusing to sign paperwork while, in the meantime, tightening up their legal positions before doing so. It is not okay for the Government to allow that to happen.
Last week, the Secretary of State said that he was “clear about who should” be “remedying failures”. He said:
“It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse.”
He went on to say:
“I have established a dedicated team in my Department to expose and pursue those responsible.”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 283-284.]
Let us see that come to fruition and see what that really means on the face of the Bill.
Stepney Court is just one of multiple blocks in the New England quarter of my constituency where defects have been identified and residents are battling with those responsible. Will the Minister ensure that his team looks into the problems facing residents in the area, where unpicking the responsibility for where remedial work lies has led to unacceptable delays in accessing support from the building safety fund? It is not just Stepney Court; residents in Embankment House and Temple House are still waiting for a decision on their application, too.
To be clear, on who should pay, we need guarantees that the buck will not be passed to those who, frankly, cannot pay. I have scores of constituents who are trapped in properties that they cannot sell—mortgage prisoners who cannot move on. I have more than 1,000 constituents living in dangerous homes. They need guarantees that issues other than cladding will be covered in the Building Safety Bill, whether that means missing fire breaks, compartmentation, defective fire doors, wooden balconies or other construction defects. They need to know that they will not have to wait years for that to happen. They need certainty that the Bill, along with the commitments in the Secretary of State’s statement last week, will ensure that the wait for work to make their homes safe finally ends. Allowing people to remain living in unsafe homes is highly dangerous. It needs to end, and the Bill is the opportunity for the Government to address past failings as well as to look ahead. I hope that they will act with the speed and certainty that our constituents all need.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: It is nearly five years since the tragic events at Grenfell Tower, yet thousands of my constituents in Salford and Eccles still live in fear. Some live in cold, draughty flats, having waited years for already removed cladding to be replaced, and for so many leaseholders every day, the bills for interim fire safety and increased insurance premiums rack up. They cannot move, they cannot sell, they struggle to get credit and the mental toll increasingly becomes unmanageable.
When the Secretary of State informed Parliament last week that he
“will pursue statutory protection for leaseholders and nothing will be off the table”—[Official Report, 10 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 285.]
it was welcome news, but we have been here before, have we not? All his predecessors have conveyed warm, fluffy, non-binding statements to the House about protecting leaseholders, but we have seen very little action. The Minister must understand why my constituents have asked me why we are not legislating to protect them today in the Bill. There have been no clear assurances from him today, sadly, that the amendments that will be tabled in the other place will comprehensively include all leaseholders and indemnify them against all fire safety defect costs and ancillary costs that they may have incurred over the past few years.
The absence of that protection raises many more unanswered questions, which I hope the Minister will address. For example, what about my residents who have already received financially devastating demands for payment? Will he confirm what they should do? Should they ignore those demands in the hope that the Government legislate? How will he protect them when they face forfeiture and losing their home, or worse, bankruptcy?
Furthermore, there is ambiguity once again about the non-cladding fire safety defects in the majority of the affected buildings in my constituency, so will he confirm what specific actions he will take to ensure that residents and leaseholders are protected from the costs of non-cladding fire safety defects in buildings of all heights?
What about the sums spent so far? I am informed that many sinking funds in my constituency have already been wiped out by virtue of fire safety investigations and other interim fire safety costs. In addition, residents have already been paying directly for interim costs and increased insurance premiums. Will they be able to claim a refund, and will that be legislated for in the other place?
Finally, I must highlight the significant and unacceptable delays both in the completion of the fire safety works themselves and in processing building safety fund applications. A number of housing association blocks in my constituency have been without cladding for some years now, leaving many residents living in freezing conditions, and numerous other private residential buildings are reporting significant delays at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in signing off funding agreements within the building safety fund.
If the Secretary of State cannot get the limited amount of money the Government have already committed out the door, how can he assure us that any wider package he announces will be more expedient in the future? What action are the Minister and the Secretary of State taking to fast-track, expand and train up new specialists in the supply chain to carry out the urgent work required at pace?
My constituents simply deserve two urgent things from the Government: first, to have their buildings made safe as part of an urgent national building safety mission; and, secondly, to be protected from the costs of a fire safety crisis they did not cause. Sadly, as drafted so far, this Bill delivers neither. I hope the Minister reflects on the amendments that will be required in the other place and delivers the safety and protection that my constituents deserve.

Florence Eshalomi: I start by paying tribute to the many hundreds of Vauxhall residents who have contacted me in my short two years as Member of Parliament for Vauxhall. They have been contacting me even though they are suffering sheer mental stress, contacting me even though at times they feel that there is no end to this nightmare, contacting me because they have been trapped in homes they are unable to sell and contacting me, frankly, because some of their properties are unsafe. At every stage of my continued efforts on behalf of Vauxhall leaseholders going through that anguish and uncertainty over the last two years, the Bill has been held up by the Government as the solution that would finally bring an end to this crisis. Regrettably, it does not.
The Bill is a step in the right direction in the fight to ensure that nobody has to live in a death trap and a fire trap like Grenfell Tower, and as a legislator I support the measures to keep my constituents safe. I therefore welcome the essential changes that will bring an end to the shambolic safety regime that led to the Grenfell tragedy, and the introduction of a regulator to oversee that. I also welcome the new Secretary of State’s change of approach to the question of leaseholder liability, which has clearly become one of the most clear injustices I have seen in politics. It is clear that the Bill will give leaseholders important new rights to challenge freeholders and developers when negligence has occurred. I am  pleased, too, that the Government finally agree that no leaseholder living in a building of under 11 metres will pay for the cost of cladding remediation in the future, for which my Opposition colleagues have been calling for many months.
However, we must not pretend that the Bill achieves what it should have done. Millions of leaseholders who have been in a position of deep uncertainty for years will still be there after today, reliant yet again on warm words from the Government and the good will of profit-making companies that have done their best to evade that at every turn. I understand why so many Vauxhall constituents simply do not trust that promises will be delivered on, which is why it is so disappointing, frankly, that much of what was in the Secretary of State’s statement last week is not included in the Bill.
A lot has been said about the inconsistency of saying that leaseholders should be protected from cladding costs while leaving them on the hook to pay for the extortionate cost of other defects, and I add my full support to Members from across the House who have spoken out against that. There are several ongoing issues that the Bill does nothing to address, such as the extortionate insurance premiums and other secondary costs before remediation is completed. Let us be clear that leaseholders will be meeting those unjust costs for years until decisive action is taken.
Most importantly, both the Bill’s provisions and the Secretary of State’s announcement last week appear to apply only to future contexts. Where does that leave the millions of leaseholders caught up at various points along the way of that lengthy scandal? What does the Bill do to empower leaseholders who had their assessment before the recent changes in Government policy and believe that unnecessary work has been recommended for their building? Where is the help for leaseholders whose flats are unsellable until that remediation work is complete but who have been told that they will have to wait many years? They are trapped. The Government have known about all those issues for far too long and have done nothing while leaseholders have suffered. Today, they had the opportunity to accept amendments that would have fixed them, but yet again they chose to turn a blind eye.
With a heavy heart, I welcome the Bill, because it will make my constituents living in high-rise buildings safer. The Minister, in his opening statement, said that living in a home where you feel safe is a basic human right, but many of my leaseholders in Vauxhall still do not feel that they have that right. I lament another missed opportunity to rescue leaseholders from the scandal.

Rachel Hopkins: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a member of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and having set on the Bill Committee, I welcome many of the Bill’s provisions. However, as a point of principle, no innocent leaseholder should have to remediate any historical cladding and non-cladding defects. We have heard that point made so well across the Chamber all afternoon.
Key now is what the Bill does not include, rather than what it does. We have heard much about the amendments that the Government propose will be considered in the  other place, and I reiterate the call that we must have a full debate on the Bill’s return to the House to ensure those statutory protections for leaseholders. The proposal to make developers pay £4 billion for cladding removal in buildings under 18 metres is unclear on how quickly developers will be asked to pay and what measures the Government will take if they refuse. Without immediate compulsion, the process threatens to continue to be drawn out, with innocent leaseholders trapped in properties that they cannot sell and paying bills that they cannot afford. Does the Minister think it is right that social landlords have paid millions more than developers to fix the building safety scandal at the cost of delivering new social homes? I hope that we will see urgent action to appease concerns raised by leaseholders and Members across the House and to allay genuine concerns that it is one rule for council and social landlords and another for the Government’s developer friends.
We have yet to see the clarity that we expect on specific parts of the Bill for the significant numbers of leaseholders who face huge bills to fix non-cladding defects. If the Secretary of State is serious about ending that injustice, leaseholders must be protected from the cost of covering all historical defects. I reiterate the point made by many that those who created the crisis must be made to fix it.
I press the Government again to listen to leaseholders about how the ordeal has affected their mental health. Leaseholders in Luton South have told me how their mental health has suffered severely because of their fear of debt and bankruptcy and the pressure of the situation. One constituent told me how the threat of bankruptcy threatened their professional title and, therefore, their career. The scandal has prevented people from moving on with their lives—it is a form of purgatory.
When we discussed mental health in Committee, the Minister suggested that leaseholders should refer to their GPs, but we know how many pressures they are under. The Guardian has reported that officials have told leaseholders to call Samaritans. Both suggestions are simply inadequate. I repeat the ask that I made of the Secretary of State during last week’s statement for specific mental health support for affected leaseholders. We have had much debate today and through the consideration of this Bill that has been very technical and about buildings, but I stress again that this is about people and how they are affected. We must ensure that the leaseholder and tenant voice is heard as the Bill continues through its process.
The point has been made more than once, both today and over the past four years, that a disaster such as Grenfell must never happen again. The insufficient action for nearly five years shows the need for an interventionist Government to make people safe, as the market alone is incapable of doing that. I support my party’s calls for the Government to set up a building works agency that would go block by block assessing risk, commissioning necessary fire safety work, certifying that work and pursuing those responsible for the costs. I look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State with regard to those issues.
Innocent leaseholders need action. Comprehensive measures must be implemented to prevent this disaster from ever happening again.

Andrew Slaughter: There is not an issue before this House that causes me as much concern as the safety of residents living in high-rise blocks from the risk of fire. That has been the case since August 2016 when there was a very serious fire at Shepherd’s Court in my constituency, which I spoke about earlier today. Fortunately, there were no casualties, but a full evacuation of an 18-storey block was required. Then, 10 months later, we had the fire at Grenfell, the absolute horror of which stays with me every day. Grenfell is only about a mile from where I live, and for 72 people to lose their lives in those circumstances is just so appalling that we cannot spend enough time, or do enough, to ensure that that never happens again in the future. Yet we have had other serious fires since that time.
Grenfell led to the identifying of many faults, including external cladding, poor management, poor construction and maintenance, and the people who live in social housing in particular not being taken notice of. It also made us look at the whole issue of fire safety, which is what the Bill purports to do, and in that way Grenfell opened the door on many other issues as well. If the speech of the Minister who opened the Third Reading debate was reflected in the Bill, I would be delighted, because he announced it as a tour de force, or a tour de raison, and said that it would resolve all the issues, but it just does not. The Government’s approach has been piecemeal. It is the proverbial Swiss cheese, still full of holes, and there is a great lack of clarity. I say that with no pleasure at all. Let me give, in just a few minutes, a non-exhaustive list of the issues that I either still cannot comprehend or know are not properly covered in the Bill.
We started off with the building safety fund applying to buildings over 18 metres tall, and that was extended to one type of cladding, aluminium composite material cladding, and then to another, hydraulic power unit cladding. We have now had a recent announcement from the new Secretary of State—I hope I have understood this correctly—that there will be a request to private developers to provide £4 billion, with a veiled threat of enforcing that in some as yet unspecified way, in order to deal with buildings between 11 and 18 metres. I am not even sure whether this covers all types of cladding and external wall issues. Does it cover wooden balconies or wooden panelling, for example? I do not think that it does.
The issue has been raised several times, including today and in the statement, of non-cladding defects in buildings above 11 metres. I am not clear whether these will all be covered, yet all these things represent clear and present dangers of fire and fire spread. What about tall buildings that are not specifically residential, such as hospitals and hotels, but still pose risk to people, including vulnerable people, who sleep in them? What about buildings below 11 metres, which, either because they are of a particular construction or because of their use—for example, care homes and schools—also pose risk? We have heard nothing of that either.
This is an example from my own borough, and it is not a rare example. There are often developments where there are interlinked buildings above and below 18 metres. What has often happened is that, quite rightly, the landlord has got on with remedial works, probably because they have to do so in order to apply to the building safety fund within the time limit. They have obviously  also done work on parts of the structure below 18 metres, but now they are told that leaseholders will not be able to recover the funds. That is a Catch-22 that has not been addressed in the Bill.
Earlier we touched on the issue of social landlords and tenants, and on the fact that they are both being made to pay through the nose. That money is coming out of those landlords’ other funds, which would otherwise be used for new home developments or the repair, maintenance and management of existing homes, and there has not been a clear response from the Government on that either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke of the fact that, every day, planning applications are going forward that do not comply with best practice. We heard the extreme example of blocks over 50 storeys tall that have a single staircase. What about the issue of stay put evacuation policies? What about alarm systems? What about sprinkler systems? What about ensuring, as I mentioned in dealing with electrical safety matters earlier, that all dwellings in a high-rise block are dealt with equally? Those are all pregnant questions, which I do not see being answered in the Bill at all.
Until we start to deal with this issue comprehensively, the Bill will only begin to scratch at a real problem. Yes, it is a real problem. I do not say it is a party political problem; it has developed over many decades. I think we are all shocked to find out that building standards are so low in this country, but now we know that, we have to do something.
My final plea is this: can we have transparency from the Government? I have followed organisations such as openDemocracy. Ever since Grenfell, a whole series of freedom of information requests have been resisted and pushed back, first through the inquiries unit in the Cabinet Office, and secondly through the now notorious clearing house that used to be run by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up. Last Friday, I saw an article published by openDemocracy that showed that they are still doing this—they are still trying to withhold information that is being legitimately requested. The irony is that the person to whom they went for assistance on how to withhold that information was a lady called Sue Gray. I hope that the practice of advising colleagues on how not to be frank and full in displaying information on such a subject will not carry over into other aspects of her work, but that is one further illustration of how we are so far away from dealing with this problem. I cannot sleep easily at night knowing that my constituents cannot sleep easily at night because the risk to them of, at worst, a repetition of Grenfell, or of something less dramatic but still problematic, is still there and has not been addressed by the Government over the last five years.

Clive Betts: As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said, the Bill is a response to Grenfell, and the intention must be to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again. That is a clear objective that everyone can share.
The Bill before us is welcome. It does many good things, and I would like to think that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has helped in  the process. We have had five inquiries and five reports, which I think have pushed the Government in the right direction, although probably not as far as we would want them to go in some respects. Certainly, the provision of funds for cladding removal, the initial move on the ACM cladding, the £1 billion and the extension of the building safety fund to £5 billion have all been welcome. That is something the Select Committee has recognised. Nevertheless, we are still in an imperfect position—we hope it is a position in progress, as the Minister has explained. I still want to see the objectives that I set out earlier to be met: that leaseholders, who are not responsible for these mistakes, should not have to pay; that tenants, who are not responsible, should not have to pay; and that there should not be cuts in the social house building programme to pay for this.
We welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement, and we are going to hold a short inquiry—it will be short in how quickly we are going to do it, but not short in the detail—to follow up on it. We join the Secretary of State and the Minister in wanting to ensure that those responsible for these defects are held to account and that the whole of the construction industry, in its widest sense, including product manufacturers, insurance providers and everyone else, ultimately has to pay for these costs. That is absolutely right.
To summarise, as the Minister rightly said, we are not, on Third Reading, at the end of the process, but at the end of the beginning. I welcome the Government’s and the Minister’s commitments to bring the issues back to this House for detailed consideration once they have been considered in the other place.
Two other issues need to be addressed in due course. We cannot legislate for one of them, as Dame Judith clearly identified: regulation is important, but there has to be a complete change of culture in the construction industry. The objective of that industry for too long has been to get around regulation; whatever regulations are in place, it has found ways to avoid them and to cut corners. That cannot continue, and that is a major challenge; we share the challenge but this is going to be very difficult to achieve. Parts of the industry have woken up and recognised this, but other parts hope that this will all go away and they can carry on as before. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Finally, let me return to the comments made by the Father of the House, who has done magnificent work in pushing the case for leaseholders and leasehold reform. After we have, as we hope to do, got this Bill and subsequently the Act into a form that we can all thoroughly support, we will then move on to dealing with the issue of leasehold reform in full. I offer again to the Government the Select Committee as a way to look at that proposed legislation in draft form. It is going to be complicated and detailed, but I think there will be cross-party support in principle for it. So I hope that the Government will look at bringing that forward in draft form. We will look at it and scrutinise it rapidly but thoroughly in the Select Committee. By doing that, we can make that also a better piece of legislation.

Christopher Pincher: Given all I said previously, I would not want to be accused of detaining the House and the swift passage of the Bill, beyond simply saying  thank you to everyone at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, particularly my officials who are in the Box and several who are not, and Lord Greenhalgh, who have worked so assiduously to bring the Bill to its current stage, where we can all agree to it today. I also wish to thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for his help and support, and we look forward to further collaboration with the Committee.
I congratulate all Members from across the House for their campaigning zeal: the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland); my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell); the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi); and many others who have worked so very hard to on behalf of their constituents to make sure that their concerns are addressed. I am glad that we are able to support the Bill tonight, and I wish it well on its swift passage to the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to Committee on Standards not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; proceedings relating to the motion on Committee on Standards may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Committee on Standards

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That this House–
(1) approves the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards, HC 1036;
(2) endorses the recommendations in paragraphs 78 and 79; and
(3) accordingly suspends Daniel Kawczynski from the  service of the House for a period of one sitting day, on Thursday 20 January.
Today’s motion follows the publication of the Committee on Standards’ fifth report of this Session. The report was agreed by the Committee and published on 13 January 2022. The Government have sought to schedule a debate as soon as possible, as is the usual practice.
It is always regrettable when a motion such as this is before the House. The matter has been investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and now reported on by the Committee on Standards. I thank the Commissioner and the Standards Committee for producing this report. The motion endorses the recommendations of the Committee, and proposes that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) be suspended from the service of the House for one sitting day.
I commend the motion to the House.

Bernard Jenkin: I hope the House will forgive me if I detain the House for a few moments while I explain a bit about this report, because it is the first time that a case of this nature has come before the Committee and been adjudicated upon. Normally it would be the Chairman of the Committee who would be speaking in this debate on behalf of the Committee, but the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is on a Select Committee visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee and therefore cannot be here. I am speaking in his stead.
The House, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, always finds these occasions somewhat uncomfortable and there is an understandable wish to dispose of this motion without undue fuss and move on as quickly as possible. However, there are some important points surrounding this case which must be made, and I hope all hon. and right hon. Members will wish to understand these issues. The first is that the House has committed itself to supporting the new independent system for dealing with bullying and harassment—the independent complaints and grievance system. The ICGS has only recently been set up.
Independent is the key word. Dame Laura Cox, in her 2018 report on bullying and harassment of House staff, recommended that Members of Parliament should not be involved in adjudicating on their own colleagues accused of these very serious offences. The House agreed, and we now have a system of independent helplines, investigation and ultimately adjudication. The Committee on Standards, and MPs in general, quite rightly no longer have a role in deciding on bullying and harassment cases. ICGS cases are heard by the independent expert  panel, known as the IEP. This is chaired by a very distinguished former Appeal Court judge, Sir Stephen Irwin, and he is supported by other experienced jurists. The House has also approved Standing Orders, which means that the House votes on any motion to suspend a Member without debate. This is the system that led the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) to be required to apologise in the original case. However, the Standards Committee and the House still have our role overseeing the House of Commons code of conduct. It is a breach of the Commons code if it appears that an ICGS sanction has not been complied with, and that is what the present case was about.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham—my hon. Friend—was found by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to have breached the ICGS rules for having bullied two members of Commons staff. The hon. Member did not appeal against that finding. A sub-panel of the IEP imposed the sanction that he should apologise in the House. He appealed against the sanction, but a separate sub-panel upheld it. The hon. Member—my hon. Friend—accordingly made the apology on 14 June 2021. Unfortunately, on the same day, before the publication of the report, he broke the embargo by giving a radio interview and by speaking to a newspaper. He made comments suggesting that he was only apologising because he was being forced to apologise, and which suggested that his apology was not sincere. He further challenged the legitimacy of the system and indirectly identified the original complainants, despite having been warned not to do so. That was in direct breach of undertakings that he had previously given to the IEP.
What my hon. Friend did was equivalent to showing contempt of court. It was a very serious attempt to subvert the system that the House so recently established. It was an attempt to not only undermine the credibility of the original complainants, but, if left unaddressed, discourage anyone who might be contemplating making a future complaint about bullying.
The IEP chair rightly referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as a serious breach of the Commons code. The commissioner investigated the report and reported to the Standards Committee, finding that my hon. Friend had failed to comply with the IEP sanction, which was that he should unequivocally apologise. She also found that he had breached other undertakings and concluded that he had therefore brought the House into disrepute.
The Standards Committee has upheld the commissioner’s findings. Our report made it clear that we consider it to be a very serious breach of the rules. By endorsing our report, the House sends a clear message in this first case, not just that bullying and harassment will not be tolerated, but that legitimate complainants will be supported and that anyone who seeks to undermine the ICGS will be sanctioned.
The Committee decided that the appropriate sanction for the breach of the Commons code would be a suspension from the House for a significant period. In this case, however, the Committee considered that there were significant mitigating factors. Once my hon. Friend was confronted by what he had done, he co-operated fully with the commissioner and the Committee. He apologised to the Committee and apologised unreservedly for his conduct on 14 June 2021, as he did earlier today.  We accept that he may have been triggered, as the term suggests, into that conduct by a prior leak of information about his case on the internet on 14 June.
We accept that my hon. Friend has been sincerely attempting to understand the causes of his poor attitude and behaviour and is seeking to address them. The Committee felt that he has made progress in self-understanding but that he has more work to do in cultivating empathy and a real ability to understand how bullying affects its victims. He has been candid in discussing with the Committee his own mental health issues.
We recommend that my hon. Friend is suspended for just one day, but we point out that there would have been a much longer period of suspension if it had not been for those mitigating circumstances. We have also required him to apologise for his conduct both orally in the House and in writing to those he has offended.
As I said, this is the first such referral to the Committee. It is an opportunity not just for my hon. Friend but for the whole House to learn that deriding or undermining the ICGS is a serious breach of the Commons code of conduct and is morally wrong. Any future such breach is likely to be met with a more significant period of suspension. With regret, I urge the House to support the motion.

Thangam Debbonaire: I begin by thanking the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for his wise and measured words. He did the Committee on Standards proud in how he represented its findings; I have read the report many times. I also thank the other members of the Committee, the Clerks and the other staff involved in the report and the process that came before it for their diligent work, well-evidenced findings and fair recommendations.
I agree with the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex that it is never enjoyable to have to stand up and respond on a motion to sanction a Member or Members. It is disappointing for us all. It does us no good and it does no good to the reputation of this honourable place in which we are all proud to serve—including, I am sure, the Member concerned.
Depending on the reaction of that Member, or others in other cases, there is a risk of undermining the rules by which we should be proud to be bound and the processes set up to assess and enforce them. I believe that most Members do abide by that code, as well as by the standards in public life, on a daily basis. We all know that codes of behaviour and standards in public life matter for us. In a democracy, there is perhaps nothing we should be more proud of than our ability to serve our constituents not for political ends, but for public service ends, according to the codes—the parliamentary code of conduct and the ministerial code.
Our staff—the staff of this House—deserve to know that we will abide by this system and that we enter into that contract freely and willingly. The public also deserve it. They should be able to see us as public servants who value the opportunity to live out those high standards. We should always welcome and applaud those who are  involved in the systems that are designed to assess those standards. To that end, I encourage all Members to take part in the live consultation on our code of conduct by the Committee on Standards.
I will not repeat what the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex have said about this case. I have read the report and it is disappointing that a Member of this House appeared to show such a disregard not just for the rules of this place, but for the feelings of the other people involved and the impact of his behaviour on them.
However, this case also illustrates that the system is working. The fault was picked up, a further assessment was made, and today the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) apologised to the House, as was recommended. It appeared to me that his apology was genuine and sincere. I trust him to make amends and to make the behaviour changes that are needed to rebuild the trust that everybody—his colleagues and the staff—wants to have in him. I am assured by what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said that he is making those behaviour changes. I wish him well in that process. I hope he knows that the whole House is willing him to succeed, and that we will assist—every one of us—wherever we can.
It is unfortunate that the last time we debated a Standards Committee report and sanction, the Government led the charge against the sanction. It appeared that they were attempting to rip up the standards system. That did not go well and I am pleased that today’s motion was presented unamended. I welcome that and am relieved to see it, because it seems as though the Government have changed their attitude and will join me in welcoming the review of the code of conduct being carried out by the Standards Committee. I am glad that the sanction includes the condition that the suspension must not fall on a Friday. That is a mistake that, whatever the reason, should not be repeated.
This is a refreshing change. I support the Government in moving the motion and I value the opportunity to speak—thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham well in his process of change, and I ask all right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that we always do everything we can to live out the high system of standards that the public and our staff have a right to expect.

Pete Wishart: I echo the words of the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the ICGS and the IEP. I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for the way in which he presented the case of the Standards Committee. All his comments were welcome and I am grateful for them.
It is good to see that this motion will pass more seamlessly and with a little less fuss than the last motion that the Standards Committee brought to the House in November. I think the Government have learned the lessons of that bitter experience. I hope we will never ever see another attempt to overturn the verdict of our Standards Committee. I remember only too well that  day in early November when the last Standards Committee motion was brought to the House, and the sequence of events that followed has led to the Prime Minister fighting for his political life today. The Government thought that they could reinvent the Standards Committee; I am grateful that that opportunity has passed by and that we are examining what the Standards Committee does properly.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) is right to mention the ICGS, which has been a huge success for the House. The conclusion of this case demonstrates that it is working well. We have to ensure that staff feel confident to raise issues with the ICGS. They must know that these people will be on their side and make sure that they are listened to, and that any complaint they bring forward will be taken seriously. That is very welcome.
I do not want to go into the behaviour of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) too much. It is all documented and nothing needs to be added to what the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said. I am relieved that a fulsome apology was made today, and the House welcomes it. We recognise that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has had difficulties, but there can never be any excuse for bad behaviour towards the staff of the House, regardless of the situation and condition in which hon. Members find themselves. The staff of the House are here to serve us, and they do their best to accommodate us and to ensure that we are able to do our job in this Chamber and in representing our constituents. Taking out any sort of ill effect or bad temper on the staff of this House should be suitably punished, and I am glad that has been the outcome.
I hope the hon. Gentleman has learned from this experience, and I hope members of staff now feel confident in the process for properly raising complaints and are confident that such complaints will be listened to and addressed. I hope we do not see many more examples. Along with everybody else, I am prepared to let this mater lie. Let us move on.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Charities Bill [Lords]: Committee

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
That the Charities Bill [Lords] Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Channel Tunnel

That the draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 2 December 2021, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Data Protection

That the draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Amendment of Schedule 2 Exemptions) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2021, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

European Court of Human Rights

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

John Howell: It is a great pleasure to have the Adjournment debate tonight. I am the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, but I will not be commenting on the consultation recently launched by the Lord Chancellor as it is largely a domestic issue. I will be considering the European Court of Human Rights from the Strasbourg end.
I am not from the wing of my party that believes we should pull out of the European Court of Human Rights, and I do not have an isolationist perspective that we should simply go it alone and ignore anything the Court says. The purpose of this debate is to consider how the Court can be reformed to make it better for people right across Europe, to make it more useful, to make its judgments more relevant and, above all, to make sure its judges show the same degree of integrity for which British judges are famous.
The UK has a key role in taking this forward. This is not about judgments but, among other things, it is about judges. The key question for the Government is whether they will support me, as the Secretary of State for Justice suggested, in the reforms about which I have already begun to have conversations in Strasbourg.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for all that he does in his role at the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a member. Does he agree that, although we have left the European Union—there is still some fragility in relation to that—it is crucial that the UK continues to play a part in the Council of Europe to ensure that human rights cases, in which he is particularly interested, are dealt with properly and that countries such as Russia, which has the most cases brought against it, are held to account? Does he agree that is important?

John Howell: I agree, and I will address the enormous number of cases involving Russia. The order of countries with the most cases before the European Court of Human Rights is: Russia, Turkey and Romania. We are nowhere on that list, but it is important for us to concentrate on it.
I shall turn first to the question of judges. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elects the judges of the European Court of Human Rights. This immediately brings into question whether there should be a balance between the democratic legitimacy provided by us electing those judges and the political process. That question has been asked not only by us in Europe; it is always being asked in the USA. The politics of judges are not declared on their curriculum vitae, but everyone knows the political background of each candidate, and the voting for or against them is very much on party lines, as you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, from your time on the Council of Europe.
According to the European convention on human rights, judges must
“be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.”
To ensure that these standards are met, there are two phases to the election process. The first phase is a national selection procedure, in which each state party chooses a list of three qualified candidates. The second phase is the election procedure undertaken by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in which parliamentarians assess the qualifications of the three candidates before voting to decide which one should become a judge. A fair and transparent process is called for throughout the entire operation. All candidates must have appropriate legal qualifications and experience, but the judge need not be a judge in their own country, and it is possible for politicians and civil servants to be appointed as judges. This happens frequently. In the UK, where judges are appointed and progressed through the judicial rankings based on merit and with political bipartisanship, this concept can be difficult to understand.
At this point, I should like to praise our own judge there, Tim Eicke QC. He is qualified in at least two systems of law, he is genuinely independent, and a fair process was used to appoint him. He has gone out of his way to give support to the Parliamentary Assembly, and we have had a number of discussions with him. I pay him the greatest possible compliments for the work that he does in the Court.
A recent report shows that at least 22 of the 100 permanent judges who have served on the European Court of Human Rights between 2009 and 2019 are former officials or collaborators of seven non-governmental organisations that are highly active before the Court. Since 2009, there have been at least 185 cases in which at least one of these seven NGOs was officially involved in the proceedings. In 88 of those cases, judges sat in a case in which the NGO with which they were linked was involved. For example, in one case before the Court, 10 of the 16 applicants were NGOs funded by the one NGO that looked after them, as were six of the NGOs acting as third parties. Of the 17 judges who have sat in the Grand Chamber, six are linked to the applicant and intervening NGOs. From 2009 to 2019, there were only 12 cases in which a judge withdrew from a case apparently because of a link with an NGO involved in the case. This situation calls into question the independence of the Court and the impartiality of the judges, and it is contrary to the rules that the ECHR itself imposes on states in this area.
Particular attention should be paid to the choice of candidates for the posts of judges. A mechanism is needed for avoiding the appointment of political activists, not only to the office of judge, but as Court jurists. Links between NGOs, lawyers and applicants should be made visible by asking them to indicate in the application form whether they are accompanied in their efforts by an NGO, and to mention its name. This requirement would improve the transparency of the proceedings, both for the Court and for the respondent Government. The future of the convention system rests on this, as:
“The quality of judges and members of the Registry is essential to maintaining the authority of the Court and therefore also for the future of the Convention mechanism.”
I emphasise that it is the quality of the judges that is crucial to the future of the system.
We all know that NGOs have a strong political or ideological character, which in itself should be seen not as an advantage, but as an obstacle to appointment to the Court. To this end, candidates for the office of judge should have the obligation to declare their relationships with any organisation that is active at the Court. Also, the Parliamentary Assembly should be given sufficient means to carry out a proper assessment of candidates before the election. The current arrangement does not allow for in-depth discussion, although there is a separate Committee set up on which a number of Members of this House serve.
The current publication of the summary of judges’ curriculum vitae could be complemented by a simple thing: a declaration of interests. The demand for declarations of interest and their publication is growing, as they constitute one of the main measures to prevent conflicts of interest. Such a declaration has been imposed on all French magistrates since 2016. In the United States, members of the Supreme Court are subject to a declaration of interests, updated each year and made public, which notably mentions the advantages or gifts received during the previous year. A similar requirement should be put in place if we want the quality of judges of the European Court of Human Rights and the whole structure to be in line with what we expect it to be.
Some work also needs to be done on formalising withdrawal procedures. Any judge who, in a particular case, has doubts as to the requirements concerning him or herself on the principles of judicial ethics should have the obligation, and no longer only the option, to inform the President of the Court. The Court should inform the parties in advance of the composition of the formation of the panel that will decide their case, in accordance with the principle of publicity of the proceedings provided by the convention itself, in article 6. In its current practice, the Court deprives the parties of the possibility of requesting the withdrawal of a judge, as it only informs them of the identity of the judges when the judgment is published. There are exceptions to this, where the case is tried in public hearing or in the Grand Chamber, but most cases are not so tried, so the ability of the person bringing a case to challenge a judge for his or her association with an organisation such as an NGO is removed. A party cannot generally effectively request the withdrawal of a judge, which I think is very sad.
Finally, I want to turn to the Brighton declaration to see whether it might be able to help. It was produced towards the end of our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, not long after I entered the House, although I was not involved in the Council of Europe at that time. The declaration covered the future of the European Court of Human Rights. It opened with a general reaffirmation of our
“deep and abiding commitment to the Convention” —[Interruption.]
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

John Howell: I am sorry that I was so carried away, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you had to cough to attract my attention.
Now I have lost track of where I was—[Hon. Members: “Brighton! “] Yes, Brighton.
The aim of the Brighton declaration was to secure rights and freedoms as defined in the convention. It also recognised the fundamental principle of subsidiarity. That may have been one of the first occasions on which the term “subsidiarity” was used to describe a European institution. It would be typical of the EU to steal that, as it stole the flag of the Council of Europe and the anthem as well—but we can consider that on another occasion.
The declaration contained specific practical measures designed to enhance the role of national Parliaments in ensuring effective implementation, such as their being offered information on the compatibility of draft primary legislation with the convention—I, and, I am sure, all other Members, have seen the use of those measures in the context of legislation that we consider and how we go about implementing it—and it encouraged the facilitation of the important role of national Parliaments in scrutinising the effectiveness of the measures taken by Governments to implement judgments of the Court. However, while those measures are welcome, the declaration failed to address the key points that I have mentioned—for instance, the point about reform of the judges. I suspect that that is because there is such a vested interest in that regard, and that reform will therefore prove to be a long task; I hope that I will continue in my current role for long enough to be able to perform it. The changes that were proposed in the declaration were relatively technical and uncontroversial in nature.
It would be more useful for me to address some of the issues that are likely to come up under the consultation, which I said I would not cover in my speech. Let me now say that I lied about that, and touch on a few of them. They include the ability of individuals to obtain practical and effective access to the Court, and the relationship of the Court to the member states which are part of it. The declaration gave a strong commitment to the convention without tackling the crucial issue of the election of judges. I return to what I said about the quality of those judges being essential to the future of the Court and of the convention system.
Those are all important things to discuss, but if we get too far into them without tackling the problem of the judges and the mechanics of the Court, we miss a trick—here I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: we, as the United Kingdom, have a great deal to offer because of the standards of our judicial system and our experience—because we miss the opportunity to reform the Court not just for our benefit, but for that of people throughout Europe.
I will leave the House with one important statistic that I have already mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The countries with the most cases against them are Russia, Turkey and Romania. The UK has very few cases against it. Everybody remembers votes for prisoners because over the time that I have been in Parliament that is the one major issue that has come to the House. That gives us a good chance to implement change that is clean and for the greater benefit. I hope that, with the help of the Ministry of Justice, I will be able to carry that out in Strasbourg, hopefully with the agreement of all the other member countries that elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Minister, James Cartlidge.

James Cartlidge: As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for the Adjournment debate, especially as you served on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as recently as 2017, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) observed.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the quality and detail of his speech. I value his insight into the problems that face the Strasbourg Court given his twin roles as chair of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and vice-president of the Assembly. I commend his work in both roles: he and the rest of the delegation do a fantastic job representing our Parliament in Strasbourg.
My hon. Friend is widely recognised at the Assembly as a champion of democracy and transparency, the latter of which is particularly central to the debate. To highlight just one of his achievements in Strasbourg, he co-authored two important reports that pointed out issues affecting the rule of law and democracy in Turkey. The reports led to the Assembly’s adopting two resolutions, the most recent of which was adopted in April last year and called on Turkish authorities to take steps to address the issues that my hon. Friend had raised, including the need to refrain from incriminating, prosecuting and arresting peaceful demonstrators, students and LGBT people.
I mentioned transparency; in June last year, my hon. Friend supported the motion introduced by one of his co-delegates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), that called on the Assembly to set up a transparency register to address concerns about the influence of some NGOs in the Assembly’s decision-making processes. I heard the similar concerns that my hon. Friend expressed in respect of the Strasbourg Court and will in a moment touch on the issue of the selection and election of judges to the Court, which made up much of the substance of his speech.
The Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights in particular, has played a leading role in the protection and promotion of human rights across our continent. The Court now has jurisdiction in respect of no fewer than 47 countries and is widely recognised as one of the most successful regional human rights courts in the world.
The UK, of course, has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected both at home and abroad and, as my hon. Friend knows, was instrumental in the drafting of the European convention on human rights and in the setting up of the Council of Europe, the primary statue of which is still known as the treaty of London.
As we have previously assured the House, the Government are wholeheartedly committed to remaining party to the ECHR and will ensure that our obligations under it—including those relative to the execution of judgments of the Strasbourg Court against the UK—continue to be met. It has long been a UK objective to strengthen the Strasbourg Court and the convention  system, both to improve the efficiency of the European Court of Human Rights in the light of its continued backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity to which my hon. Friend referred in detail.
It is true that the Court, having become a victim of its own success, continues to face significant challenges, with its case load having grown exponentially in the past 20 years. As a way to address this, in 2010 ECHR state parties adopted the Interlaken declaration, a 10-year programme of work known as the Interlaken process that set out to reduce the Court’s backlog of cases and allow for all cases, especially those that concern serious violations of human rights, to be adjudicated within a reasonable time. That was followed in 2012 by the Brighton declaration, which was adopted under the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.
As my hon. Friend will recognise, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to reform the Strasbourg Court following the Interlaken declaration, and the Brighton declaration went further than Interlaken in a number of respects. Notably, it called for the stronger application of the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. Those calls were, of course, aimed to address the Court’s growing case load, but they also served as a reminder of the paramount role of national courts in the enforcement of human rights.
One of the major achievements of the Brighton declaration was protocol No. 15 to the convention, which came into force in August 2021. Not only does protocol No. 15 add the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation to the preamble of the convention, but it will improve the efficiency of the Strasbourg Court by shortening the time limit for applications, ensuring that all applications have been duly considered by domestic courts and ensuring an appropriate upper age limit for judges, so that they can serve for the full term of their tenure and provide continuity to the Court. We also welcomed the adoption in 2018 of the Copenhagen declaration, which carried forward some of the initiatives begun in Brighton.
Although it can be said that the Interlaken process has been partly successful—the number of applications pending before the court in January 2021 was 62,000, which is down from a record high of just over 150,000 applications in 2011—the Court’s caseload is still stubbornly high and some other issues remain. Although state parties agreed in November 2020 that no comprehensive reform of the convention was needed, there was a recognition that further efforts should be pursued, and I very much agree with that assessment.
My hon. Friend has already alluded to a specific area that is worth highlighting: the selection and election of judges to the Strasbourg Court. In my view, it is crucial that judges in Strasbourg are of the highest calibre possible and independent from any political influence, as we aim to have in our system in the UK. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as stipulated by article 22 of the convention. As part of that, the advisory panel set up in 2010 gives a non-binding   opinion on whether countries’ candidates for judges, provided as a shortlist, meet the necessary criteria set out in paragraph 1 of article 21 of the convention.
I am aware that the panel is one way in which the Council of Europe has tried to improve the standard of judges elected to the Strasbourg Court in recent years, with the aim of increasing confidence in its judgments. However, consideration must be given to whether the process undertaken by the advisory panel is sufficiently robust to ensure that all candidates meet the requisite suitability criteria. I particularly note the concern raised by my hon. Friend about the calibre of some candidates put forward and their affiliations, be they political activists or academics who have limited experience in the practical application of the law. I would therefore welcome the Parliamentary Assembly’s exploring ways in which to share best practice with state parties to assist in that regard.

John Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that Russia recently put forward three Russian candidates to be judges? They were considered so inadequate that even the committee responsible for them sent them home without seeing them.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Russia has already had quite a lot of mentions in the debate. I am sure that will continue on matters affecting the ECHR, but as I said, we need to look at the issue of judges, which was such an important part of his speech.
I am particularly pleased that, at our Government’s request, state parties have agreed to ask the Steering Committee for Human Rights to take a further look at the effectiveness of the system for the selection and election of judges at the Strasbourg Court. The report will also look into the need for additional safeguards to preserve their independence and impartiality, and it may well explore some of the areas of concern raised by my hon. Friend. I know the committee will undertake other important work concerning reforms of the Strasbourg Court, including a review of the first effects for protocol No. 15 to the ECHR.
Although the focus of the debate has quite rightly been on reform at Strasbourg level, it is worth noting that our proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998 should help to address the systematic reliance on Strasbourg jurisprudence by our domestic courts. Among other measures, we are consulting on options for reform of section 2 of the Human Rights Act that will emphasise the primacy of domestic precedent. These options will set out a broad range of case law, including, but not limited to, Strasbourg jurisprudence that UK courts may consider.
As the title of the debate is “European Court of Human Rights: Reform”, let me sum up by reiterating the UK’s commitment to its obligations under the European convention on human rights and that we will continue to abide by the Court’s judgments. We will continue to work with our Council of Europe partners to pursue ongoing reform of the Court, both to improve the Court’s efficiency in the light of its large backlog of pending applications and to ensure that it can focus on the most important cases before it, underpinned by the principle of subsidiarity.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He put his case eloquently and in great detail, and I pay tribute to him again for his work. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to respond for the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.